1.) 14 Jun 2018
14 Jun 2018 07:54:17
Thanks ed.

{Ed001's Note - welcome mate, sorry it is a bit late today, I must have switched off my alarm when I thought I was pressing snooze!}

2.) 14 Jun 2018
14 Jun 2018 08:05:24
Cheers Ed mate, have a good one!

{Ed001's Note - you too mate.}

3.) 14 Jun 2018
14 Jun 2018 08:15:45
The Peoples Game (As long as you pay enough and can afford to go) .

4.) 14 Jun 2018
14 Jun 2018 08:22:50
Thanks ed. Could Spain now go on and win the WC? It’s a funny old game.

{Ed001's Note - they certainly have the players to win it.}

5.) 14 Jun 2018
14 Jun 2018 08:49:50
I thought the same Red Spain for the cup. Oh good morning Ed me ole China.

6.) 14 Jun 2018
14 Jun 2018 09:08:26
Thanks Ed1, good read as always. I personally didn't see Spain going past the qf's this year but now wouldn't bet against them winning. That's how this mental sport of ours works.

{Ed001's Note - it is amazing how things can change like that.}

7.) 14 Jun 2018
14 Jun 2018 09:32:19
The joint bid for WC 2026 is just bizarre. They've awarded it to a continent. 3 nations that could all host it alone - what for? How is it good for anyone? It's not even like the countries are close together - geographically from northern Canada to southern Mexico is about 6500km (or about the difference from Ireland to China or Pakistan for scale) and culturally they are chalk and cheese. It's madness.

{Ed002's Note - Northern Canada has nothing to do with it at all, Edmonton will be the furthest nort of the stadia. Yesterday you shared the BS about this being corruption. So you would have awarded the World Cup to Morocco? With no suitable stadia, and no infrastructure.}

8.) 14 Jun 2018
14 Jun 2018 10:28:52
Okay then, let's look at just Edmonton to Mexico City. 4000km, 3 separate visas. I would never have allowed a joint bid by three major countries in the first place, in which case I'd hope that Morocco wasn't the option left. Although whilst I wouldn't like to vote for somewhere without suitable stadia and infrastructure, I don't see how it's suddenly a problem for those voting at FIFA after awarding South Africa and Qatar who were in the same situation.

{Ed002's Note - Morocco was the only option and join bids are encouraged. Are you planning on attending the games at Edmonton and in Mexico City? What is the relevance of the distance? You don't seem to grasp what has happened at FIFA, taht there are different people involved nor anything about the World Cup nor the bidding process. You want to give it to Morocco on the absis it was screwed up in the past and given to Qatar - it is like some so of joke.}

9.) 14 Jun 2018
14 Jun 2018 12:10:23
Interesting about martial, there is definently a player in there, has real potential.

{Ed002's Note - But not one who will be joining Liverpool.}

10.) 14 Jun 2018
14 Jun 2018 12:50:34
Eds - I'd love to go to the world cup one day. Sadly it looks like it's a dream postponed again. I admit that citing it as evidence of corruption was too much and that's my bad. And I understand that joint bids are encouraged by FIFA. But I still don't think it's a good thing. And when those join bids involve massive distances and multiple entry requirements, I think it's a major issue for a tournament and to me it's yet another example (along with the 'europe wide' Euros) that detract from what make these tournaments great. Think it's a mistake, think it'll be a tournament with very little local atmosphere and think it's sad that these are the options and choices we are left with. Clearly you think different and that's fine, and i do regret calling it corruption, but I don't like it at all.

{Ed002's Note - The distances are of no relevance - teams are not going to play one match in Mexico City, the next in Edmonton and the alst in NJ. There will be a lot of local atmosphere as there has been when the US have hosted WC tournaments in the past. The stadia are all large and well equiped, transportation is great and there is no shortage of hotels. You seem to be simply making up problems that don't exist.}

11.) 14 Jun 2018
14 Jun 2018 17:13:12
You seem to be picking on hjikle because he has a different opinion of this. I don't like the bid either because it would have gone to these three regardless of who bid against them. Holding broadcast rights to ransom would see to that, not to mention the US orchestrating the corruption investigation. Everything at FIFA is political still and the regime may have changed but the ethos hasn't. Look at Infantino's opening ceremony speech, 'FIFA will conquer Russia with footballers ll' (or words very similar) . Those words were not chosen unintentionally and nor was the decision to give the USMEXCAN bid the go ahead. Whether any rules were broken or not it might as well have been decided over a lunch meeting.

The World Cup itself will no doubt be as good as any before, I'm sure, but why go to the trouble of getting countries to bid when the decision gets made by the top brass as soon as they know who's interested?

{Ed002's Note - I am not picking on anyone - his opening gambit was it was a corrupt vote, I corrected that. You seem to be of the same I’ll informed position. I can hardly be expected to argue against your ignorance and prejudice.}