Skip to content

World Cup bidding bent and corrupt.

October 22, 2010

No surprise when a couple of  FIFA world cup members are outed. When so much funny money is at stake for the world cup host country it stands to reason that human greed comes in and dodgy deals are struck.

You’ve only got to look at how the potential host nations and cities incentivise their bid. Corporate jargon non-word for motivate, like the captains of industry need to be incentivised with massive bonuses for doing the job they’re paid thousands a day to do already.

Bristol’s bid for world-cup status has a new stadium promised, part funded by the local council’s gift of millions of ££££ of prime building land to the new stadium builder. Incentivisation and motivation?

What the jargon-spewing difference is that from a Nigerian or Tahitan asking for (less) for a project in their probably very needy country in exchange for a favourable vote.

Funny how the Tehran Times, that well known country of free speech and open-ness can report the corruption of the fifa officials but the Bristol Evening Lost keeps quiet and hopes it will go away.

Advertisements
15 Comments
  1. StillWaters permalink
    October 22, 2010 7:06 pm

    Wellllllll… it was out fault really..

    “Only last week, the chief executive of our 2018 World Cup bid explained that England’s existing infrastructure made it “a great platform for Fifa to come and make significant profits.”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2010/oct/14/marina-hyde-stanley-park-liverpool

  2. Richard Lane permalink
    October 23, 2010 6:23 pm

    I don’t think you’ve quite grasped this story as yet.
    This is a situation where members of the FIFA committee were asking for bribes to vote for a specific country’s bid, it had nothing to do with their own country or bidding for the world cup as their countries weren’t bidding.
    When you refer to the millions of pounds of land, were you referring to the car park at Ashton Gate and the former allotments at Ashton vale?
    As a reminder for you, the car park is leased to BCFC for 80 + years and as such the council will not have any benefit from it until it is sold, other than it’s rental income. It will raise considerably more revenue in rates than this when used as a supermarket car park and fuel station.
    The former allotments have remained empty and unused for many years due to no demand in south Bristol. These again will raise vast sums in rateable income from the housing.
    Both these sections of land will enable a stadium to be built that will (whether you like it or not) be a great benefit to the city of Bristol and it’s citizens.
    No money is actually being put into the venture from city council coffers, no matter how much you try to infer otherwise. This is part of the councils forward planning in it’s bid to be a host city, should England win the bidding process. If it is succesful then money will need to be invested by the council to upgrade the stadium capacity temporarily, speculate to accumilate it’s called.
    The benefits are there for anyone with a little foresight to see, that is unless your vision is impaired by prejudice against BCFC, developers, wealthy people, people with a different political viewpoint than yourselves or you support BRFC.

    Have enough comments been lodged yet or is there room for one more before closing the comments?
    I suppose that’s your right to have the last say, after all this is your propaganda, sorry! blog site.
    Just a thought, if people were not abused and then cut off mid debate, perhaps you might have more comments, rather than those solely from the self appreciation society as at present.

  3. harryT permalink
    October 23, 2010 6:47 pm

    I hear that the whole Alderman Moores/Car park giveaway have been referred to the EU for breach of rules on State Aid to commercial entities.

    Lets see what the EU have to say. As with the independant Inspector on Asthon Vale, it is always interesting when a non-biased arbitrator has a view.

  4. Paul Bemmy Down permalink
    October 23, 2010 6:56 pm

    Hi Rich. Are you referring to me, BRFC, Bristol Rugby Football Club. Many City supporters also like to see my rugby club do well I’ll have you know. Back to the subject. As I understand it,these FIFA people wanted facilities for their own countries, not for personal gain. If I were from a poor country I might be tempted myself to do the same. Unless there’s more to it that I have missed, my guess is much worse goes undiscovered. With regard funding the stadium. I still don’t get it. £40 odd million from SL, the Sainsbury money; wheres the rest coming from. As I’ve said before, the allotments, according to Jan Ormondroyd, won’t be released untill the stadium is built. Also, will it still be the plan to build a 30,000 seater and extend it? Surely it would make more sense to just build a 40,000 seater as we will now know the result of the bid before building starts.

  5. October 23, 2010 7:11 pm

    All comments are valued especially yours. The comments board is set on a 5 day cut off so if you were cut of in your prime that’s unlucky but the same for everyone. Stops circular endless argument-but if there’s demand for more time I can extend it.

  6. StillWatersNotTonyDHonest permalink
    October 23, 2010 9:43 pm

    Good evening Mr Lane,

    “The former allotments have remained empty and unused for many years due to no demand in south Bristol.”

    Have you seen the waiting lists for allotments in South Bristol? Some go up to 3 years. In this particular instance, the area concerned was considered by locals and council alike to be ‘too far gone’ to recover as allotment land after several years of trying.

    You are correct in one vein, but completely devoid of fact in your supporting statement.

    “Both these sections of land will enable a stadium to be built that will (whether you like it or not) be a great benefit to the city of Bristol and it’s citizens.”

    Please expand on these ‘benefits’ for the citizens, when it’s clear from statements made by Bristol City supporters that ‘the only reason to have a new stadium is to gain income from non-match day events’. It’s repeated many times on their forums. No statements are made in the cause of the common citizen.

    Studies have shown that sporting venues actually decrease the per capita income of local communities. I can link the studies if you wish.

    Also, I fail to see why log-jamming a currently overloaded road system in the area will ‘benefit’ anyone locally. The developer appears to have massively massaged the reports on increased traffic to the new stadium. Again, I can link the report.

    As for FIFA;

    From Bristol 2018/2022 World Cup – Host City Bid (BCC) http://www.bristol.gov.uk/item/wrap/Council/committee/2009/ua/ua000/1124_5.pdf

    1.5 FIFA require the host city and the stadium authority to sign off the relevant
    hosting agreements for the city … the applicant host city must
    sign two further documents that: (i) assign all intellectual property rights created as
    part of the bid; and (ii) if selected to be part of the FA bid, commits £250,000 towards
    the FA’s marketing costs.

    1.6 There are significant financial implications, currently estimated at approximately £17
    million for the City Council in opting to bid to become a Host City..

    1.7 Staging the tournament will require the stadium to be built and expanded to
    meet the FIFA specification for a minimum 40,000 seat capacity. The England FA
    will assess the risks associated with Bristol’s bid and the new stadium (planning
    permission, financing, Village Green application) is recognised as the highest risk
    element. The Council have only limited opportunities to moderate these risks

    b) the City Council would be committed to the following costs in the period until FIFA select the successful host country in December 2010:
    – £250,000 contribution to the FA’s marketing costs
    – £100,000 approximately – up until December 2010 project team
    costs

    1.11 If Bristol is selected a further £0.3m would be incurred by the City Council in
    2010/11 – 2012/13 in the run up to FIFA’s final selection of host cities in 2013.

    So is it fine to create thousands of redundancies in favour of a gamble on a very vivid figure of £150 million potential income to national business interests positioned in Bristol?

    Would you willing take redundancy on the gamble that the stadium will create a better paid job for you?

    I bloody wouldn’t.

  7. Richard Lane` permalink
    October 24, 2010 9:53 pm

    Paul I’m sorry but I don’t understand your first sentence, though I wasn’t refering to you.
    I was refering to people with blinkered vision, although you are anti certain points in this whole saga I don’t think you are prejudiced in your thinking.
    As I understood it the FIFA officials were seeking to benefit personally, perhaps I’ll have to read a little more.
    Pond, from everything I’ve read about allotments in south Bristol over the past five years, they are generally not being utilised as much as those north of the river where there are long waiting lists. Obviously this changes with the economic climate and the demand may have increased.
    The allotments were too far gone, why? because they weren’t being used, I didn’t need facts for a supporting statement they speak for themselves.

  8. Richard Lane` permalink
    October 24, 2010 10:31 pm

    Pond.
    Benefits to Bristol of a new stadium.

    1. It will enable BCFC to compete with clubs of a simmilar size in attracting players and new supporters and hopefully more success. A successful club is well known to promote and benefit the home city.
    2. More people will come to Bristol to visit the new stadium for local and international Football
    3. International and local Rugby will be held there, we were missed out in the last tournament due to the poor stadium.
    3. Concerts of a higher calibre than the B list entertainers we’ve had so far, will be held there.
    4. Conferences facilities will be better with more parking than at present, so the use will be more.
    5. Many more temporary (construction jobs) and permanent jobs will be created for what are generally people in the lower income bracket.
    6. The rateable income from the enlarged facilities to the council will be more.
    7. We might just get the world cup , with part of it being held in Bristol.
    And don’t tell me that the city will not benefit from the people visiting the whole area, prior to, during and for a long time after that momentous occasion.
    The area will be host to teams and their supporters and the many thousands employed prior, during and after the event.
    I really could go on.
    The main thing is that it will raise the profile of the club and the city. It will attract many more people to the city and with them their money, swelling the coffers of shops, pubs, restaurants, hotels, buses, taxis and anyone that is employed in looking after them.
    As for the road system being log jammed, the road system has dealt with the football and other events with minimal disruption for over a hundred years. It’s ok for the ballon fiesta and 250,000 people but not for a football match, which is over in a few of hours and traffic only evident prior to and after the match. Listening to some detracters though, there shouldn’t be any fear of increased traffic due to the poor football team.
    I would also remind you that until the Taylor report recommended all seater stadia, the existing stadium had a capacity of over 30,000 and until the 80’s 42,000.

  9. harryT permalink
    October 25, 2010 9:30 am

    Since Richard Lane feels it is valid to repeat the same propoganda without explaining (a) why the stadium should be on this green belt and (b) why we should be giving allotment land away to pay for it, I have cut and pasted an earlier respionse to the same propoganda. …

    The whole point is not to oppose a stadium. It is to oppose a stadium where:

    1. it will be built on greenbelt SNCI wetlands and destroy them
    2. it will be built on land which will completely encircle the residents of Ashton Vale with fenced industry
    3. it will be built on land used by the local residents for 60 years for informal recreation
    4. it will be built on land with no decent road access and in a totally unsustainable way
    5. it will be built with huge subsidies from the public by way of land giveaways and forgone s.106 payments, with the public getting no share in the benefits (other than some cut-price gym membership) at a time when large cuts are being made
    6. it will be built only with the proceeds of selling the existing stadium land to build Bristol’s biggest supermarket in a residential area, against the wishes of the local population

    This stadium should be built on brownfield land near major roads (and don’t tell me there is not any such land as there is masses of it).

    If BCFC really wants to double their support base, they should stop this assualt and propoganda against the residents of Ashton Vale and Southville. This struggle will damage the club for a generation. Countless BCFC supporters now can’t stand the club for the lies and deceit and the use of other fans as a battering ram.

  10. Paul Bemmy Down permalink
    October 25, 2010 12:25 pm

    Hi Rich. Your comment “or you support BRFC” was obviously for Rovers fans not rugby fans, so mine was a somewhat tongue in cheek response as a Bristol Rugby fan. Humour is difficult to get over on line. Actually, your claim in your 2nd piece that “local rugby will be played there.” is, thank goodness, not true. Your Chairman has already made this clear. I say “thank goodness” because the last thing I want, even at my age, is to be forced to sit to watch the game and espescially in what would seem a pretty empty stadium.

  11. Charlie Bolton permalink
    October 25, 2010 2:14 pm

    As an allotment holder at Alderman Moores, I can assure Rich that there is a considerable waiting list for plots in the area. The fact that the area ‘over the fence’ is unused is because the council fenced it off, moved ownership to housing, and moved allotment holders to the HDAA site.

    There was in fact, an explosion of interest in allotments a few years ago in this part of the city. Indeed, I remember putting in statements to two administrations of the council asking if – when the land went, some additional allotment land could be gained. Obviously, to no avail.

  12. Still Waters permalink
    October 26, 2010 10:21 pm

    Rich:

    Mingling my responses with others:

    1) ‘It will enable BCFC to compete with clubs of a simmilar size in attracting players and new supporters and hopefully more success’

    Um, I thought it was CASH that attracted players, or was I naive in thinking it was just alcohol? (sorry, couldn’t resist that one).

    2) ‘More people will come to Bristol to visit the new stadium for local and international Football ‘

    Local football – only if the access is massively ‘improved’ which means more development.

    International – oh come on. really? Even if the UK wins the cup and Bristol gets chosen…

    3. ‘International and local Rugby will be held there, we were missed out in the last tournament due to the poor stadium.’

    No it won’t be. SL has told them off for asking.

    3.’ Concerts of a higher calibre than the B list entertainers we’ve had so far, will be held there.’

    Sooo… Elton John is B list? Anyway, I thought you wanted the Arena built here too, or is that separate? ..or now surplus to the media bias?

    4.’ Conferences facilities will be better with more parking than at present, so the use will be more.’

    Did you see the massively-underquoted traffic plans from the developers? They only underestimated the traffic by 75%..

    5. ‘Many more temporary (construction jobs) and permanent jobs will be created for what are generally people in the lower income bracket.’

    For the duration of construction, and will be mainly ‘migrant’ workers. The remaining jobs will be only really suitable for students or p/t homeworkers. Read in that BCFC counted in their current staff into the move too.

    6. ‘The rateable income from the enlarged facilities to the council will be more.’

    The loss of land value from the ‘giveaway’ will be tenfold the income.

    7.’We might just get the world cup , with part of it being held in Bristol.’

    And that’s not a fact, it’s a gamble.

    ‘And don’t tell me that the city will not benefit from the people visiting the whole area, prior to, during and for a long time after that momentous occasion.’

    Why would people want to see a white elephant long after it’s 2 week use?

    ‘The area will be host to teams and their supporters and the many thousands employed prior, during and after the event.’

    Thousands?

    ‘I really could go on.’

    I suspect you will.

    Sorry, I do see your point, but you fail to see a wider spectrum

    (that’s my polite way of calling you narrow-minded)

  13. Richard Lane permalink
    October 26, 2010 10:32 pm

    Charlie
    I understand that things have changed recently regarding the demand for allotments, but those allotments were not used sufficiently so were fenced off, you’re not telling me the tenants were evicted are you?

    Paul I refer to local matches such as Bristol V Bath which I’m sure would be played at the new stadium as it previously was at AG, hopefully for Bristol rugby sooner rather than later.

    Harry
    That land was earmarked to be removed from greenbelt by the four councils of the area, it was only made greenbelt to appease green supporters and I believe satisfy government legislation. The city council had so little land available within it’s boundary to achieve this and this was I believe it’s token gesture to satisfy those requirements.
    You suggest building a shared stadium at severnside which in itself is bad for the environment, as every attendee would need to travel by car to reach it. You can’t have it all ways.
    Not one of your numbered statements are true, they are just opinions.
    1.The stadium is not being built on the wetlands, the wetlands will remain.
    2.The residents will not be fenced in, the stadium is only parallel to twelve houses.
    3.It was not possible for the residents to use all that land while the tip was in operation. I used the tip in the 80s and it was far to dangerous to be used because of the giant vehicles traversing the site.
    4.Road access directly onto the A370 is perfectly adequate for the amount of parking provided. As for sustainability that is your opinion, mine say’s that it’s perfectly sustainable.
    5. As explained elsewhere, the car park is already in the control of BCFC and cannot be touched by the council for 80 odd years. The allotments aren’t used and S106 agreements are for projects which produce profits, they are a form of bribery/tax by the council. This project is anything but profit making, it will also subsidize the public purse in business rates for many years to come.
    6. This is the best one, you seem to think that you speak for the people of Bedminster and Southville. Less than one thousand people objected to the Sainsbury store, the majority of those were not from the area. The area has a population of about 23,000, less than 2 percent were opposed to the store, so it is hardly against the wishes of the local population.
    More likely it was against the wishes of the green party activists in the area, they as usual and I include you (if your from the area) portrayed a situation which was nowhere near the truth.
    So make another list.

  14. Richard Lane permalink
    October 26, 2010 10:33 pm

    Thanks for the response.
    I guess I’m just a cynical git.

  15. harryT permalink
    October 27, 2010 7:34 am

    Richard

    Your answers are largely fiction.

    The wetlands will be destroyed as much of the stadium and the flood run off are upon them.

    Ashton Gate Ltd still has plans for housing on the remainder of the wetlands.

    The stadium will be fenced.

    Your views on the tip contradict the evidence given by the depot manager to the inquiry. But, hey Rich I guess you know better than him. But, he accepted that land all around the tip was not tipped to the North, East and West, enabling people to continue using the land and he accepted that all the kids did play on the tip. But the tip lasted only 2 1/2 years and finished in ’89 so is barely relevant

    The EU has now been called in on the Alderman Moore’s/Car Park give away. Given the success with one independent Inspector, I’m rather expecting the EU to support the view that this was a “giveaway. “

Comments are closed.