chargement...
Daily Telegraph: Le Maroc devait organiser le Mondial 2010
boureza [ MP ] [ Ajouter à mes amis ] 19 février 2008 23:13 |
Le Maroc offrait de meilleures garanties que l’Afrique du sud pour l’organisation du Mondial 2010 selon le quotidien britannique "Daily Telegraph".
mardi 19 février 2008.
Dans un article publié dans son édition en ligne, le journal "Daily Telegraph" indique que le choix de l’Afrique pour l’organisation de la Coupe du monde de football 2010 était le bon, mais que l’Afrique du sud n’offrait pas toutes les garanties pour le succès de l’organisation de la fête mondiale du football. L’Afrique du sud contrairement au Maroc, souffre de graves problèmes de coupures d’électricité, ce qui pourrait représenter un risque pour la sécurité des millions de touristes fans de football, selon le quotidien Daily Telegraph.
Voici l'original:
2010 World Cup was made for Morocco
By Patrick Barclay
Last Updated: 12:05am GMT 17/02/2008
The decision to award the 2010 World Cup to South Africa was understandable, given that the tournament had to go to Africa, and pleasing in the sense that the South Africans had been so cruelly beaten by Germany four years earlier, when a Fifa representative from New Zealand, Charlie Dempsey, changed his mind at the eleventh hour.
It would have seemed almost a safe choice, moreover, had Nelson Mandela's powers been infinite and eternal. But they are not and fears that the rainbow nation will be unable to deliver its crock of gold are unlikely to be assuaged by last week's assurances from his successor, President Thabo Mbeki, that its electricity crisis will not affect international football's quadrennial jamboree.
There are daily power cuts, some of several hours' duration, in host cities and reports indicate that there is no chance of new generating facilities being built before 2016. So how the safety and comfort of millions of football tourists can be anything like guaranteed, in a country where there is already concern over an obstinately high level of street crime, is hard to discern.
It is very sad to say this so soon after the best Africa Cup of Nations anyone can remember, but, while Fifa were right to give Africa a World Cup, the folly of overlooking Morocco is becoming increasingly apparent.
What was the thinking behind it? Did people fret that Morocco would be seen as Africa Lite, in other words an insultingly tentative step on to the least developed continent? In which case they should have been more realistic.
Morocco's candidature had the lot. It is a relatively compact country, a lot nearer to just about everywhere — notably Europe, which supplies the majority of travelling fans at World Cups — than South Africa, and both safe and sound. It could offer hotels and some stadiums. But it lost the vote and thus the time in which to bring everything up to the requisite standard.
Now, should Mbeki be proved wrong, the tournament would probably have to be moved from Africa, which would be terribly damaging to Sepp Blatter's cherished notion of a global ''football family" because in no family does anyone like to be viewed as the poor relations. Even in the run-up to the 1986 tournament, when Colombia was obliged to withdraw because its preparations were stalling, another Latin American country — Mexico, which still had the infrastructure from 1970 — could step in.
But the face of the game has since changed due to the burgeoning corporate-hospitality sector and in this case the most likely beneficiaries of an African withdrawal would be Germany, where the carnival of two summers ago could simply be reconstructed. Although anyone who attended it would welcome another, that is not the point and it is difficult to avoid a suspicion that football, including African football, has let Africa down.
Let's hope not, especially from the British point of view; should England or any of our other counties qualify, the weather in South Africa will be a lot cooler there in June/July than in Germany.
www.telegraph.co.uk/barclay
Source: [www.telegraph.co.uk]
mardi 19 février 2008.
Dans un article publié dans son édition en ligne, le journal "Daily Telegraph" indique que le choix de l’Afrique pour l’organisation de la Coupe du monde de football 2010 était le bon, mais que l’Afrique du sud n’offrait pas toutes les garanties pour le succès de l’organisation de la fête mondiale du football. L’Afrique du sud contrairement au Maroc, souffre de graves problèmes de coupures d’électricité, ce qui pourrait représenter un risque pour la sécurité des millions de touristes fans de football, selon le quotidien Daily Telegraph.
Voici l'original:
2010 World Cup was made for Morocco
By Patrick Barclay
Last Updated: 12:05am GMT 17/02/2008
The decision to award the 2010 World Cup to South Africa was understandable, given that the tournament had to go to Africa, and pleasing in the sense that the South Africans had been so cruelly beaten by Germany four years earlier, when a Fifa representative from New Zealand, Charlie Dempsey, changed his mind at the eleventh hour.
It would have seemed almost a safe choice, moreover, had Nelson Mandela's powers been infinite and eternal. But they are not and fears that the rainbow nation will be unable to deliver its crock of gold are unlikely to be assuaged by last week's assurances from his successor, President Thabo Mbeki, that its electricity crisis will not affect international football's quadrennial jamboree.
There are daily power cuts, some of several hours' duration, in host cities and reports indicate that there is no chance of new generating facilities being built before 2016. So how the safety and comfort of millions of football tourists can be anything like guaranteed, in a country where there is already concern over an obstinately high level of street crime, is hard to discern.
It is very sad to say this so soon after the best Africa Cup of Nations anyone can remember, but, while Fifa were right to give Africa a World Cup, the folly of overlooking Morocco is becoming increasingly apparent.
What was the thinking behind it? Did people fret that Morocco would be seen as Africa Lite, in other words an insultingly tentative step on to the least developed continent? In which case they should have been more realistic.
Morocco's candidature had the lot. It is a relatively compact country, a lot nearer to just about everywhere — notably Europe, which supplies the majority of travelling fans at World Cups — than South Africa, and both safe and sound. It could offer hotels and some stadiums. But it lost the vote and thus the time in which to bring everything up to the requisite standard.
Now, should Mbeki be proved wrong, the tournament would probably have to be moved from Africa, which would be terribly damaging to Sepp Blatter's cherished notion of a global ''football family" because in no family does anyone like to be viewed as the poor relations. Even in the run-up to the 1986 tournament, when Colombia was obliged to withdraw because its preparations were stalling, another Latin American country — Mexico, which still had the infrastructure from 1970 — could step in.
But the face of the game has since changed due to the burgeoning corporate-hospitality sector and in this case the most likely beneficiaries of an African withdrawal would be Germany, where the carnival of two summers ago could simply be reconstructed. Although anyone who attended it would welcome another, that is not the point and it is difficult to avoid a suspicion that football, including African football, has let Africa down.
Let's hope not, especially from the British point of view; should England or any of our other counties qualify, the weather in South Africa will be a lot cooler there in June/July than in Germany.
www.telegraph.co.uk/barclay
Source: [www.telegraph.co.uk]
20 février 2008 14:40 |
ce qui est fait et fait en peut pas revenir en arrière en plus avec Benslimane qui ne veut pas quitter son poste (tel un morback a une chevelure) je crois que pour organiser le mondial il faudras attendre longtemps
Merci d'enrichir le débat , sans dévier du débat .
***** Il n'est point de bonheur sans liberté, ni de liberté sans courage.
Anciennement ( Le marocain_2007 ) *****
Merci d'enrichir le débat , sans dévier du débat .
Anciennement ( Le marocain_2007 ) *****
21 février 2008 12:33 |
Le Maroc n'a pas gagner à cause de son image inquiétante et dangereuse.
J'ai parler et poser des questions autour de moi, et la réponse qui vient c'est : Islam et terrorisme.
Voilà pourquoi.
J'ai parler et poser des questions autour de moi, et la réponse qui vient c'est : Islam et terrorisme.
Voilà pourquoi.
21 février 2008 12:57 |
même si cette coupe du monde soit annulé a cause des problème de l'afrique de sud je ne pense pas qu'il la donneront au maroc car depuis qu'il na pas été désigné ils ont rien fait pour le foot ball national, nous n'avons pas assez de stade, ni d'hotel, ni..... je pense qu'il faut attendre 20 ans sauf qu'a ce moment la y'aura bcps de concurant comme la tunisie, egypte,.... dc le maroc doit travaillé pour l'emporté...
21 février 2008 13:46 |
Citation
atlas2008 a écrit:
Le Maroc n'a pas gagner à cause de son image inquiétante et dangereuse.
J'ai parler et poser des questions autour de moi, et la réponse qui vient c'est : Islam et terrorisme.
Voilà pourquoi.
Mais non, c'est surtout dû au manque d'ambition.
C'est pas avec des projets que tu organises un évènement internationnal.
21 février 2008 19:17 |
bonsoir à toutes et tous,
Peut-être pourrait-on organiser la coupe du monde du racket, de la corruption, de la destruction de toute un peuple, de l'arbitraire, de l'hypocrisie, de l'incompétence et autres disciplines hautement plus qualifiantes comme la soumission et dans lequelles nous excellons, pour la coupe du monde de foot-ball c'est une autre histoire.
Le maroc en entier ne possède pas le nombre de lits offerts en ILE-de-France, mais nos (ir)responsables ont toujours promis de se mettre au niveau dès que l'on leur aura octroyé l'organisation de ladire coupe du monde de foot.
cordialement
Signature : le Prophète (SAAWS) a dit : « Soutiens ton frère qu’il soit oppresseur ou opprimé». Ils dirent « Ô Prophète, nous soutiendrons celui qui est opprimé, mais comment soutenir l’oppresseur ? ». Il répondit : « En l’empêchant d’agir ».
Peut-être pourrait-on organiser la coupe du monde du racket, de la corruption, de la destruction de toute un peuple, de l'arbitraire, de l'hypocrisie, de l'incompétence et autres disciplines hautement plus qualifiantes comme la soumission et dans lequelles nous excellons, pour la coupe du monde de foot-ball c'est une autre histoire.
Le maroc en entier ne possède pas le nombre de lits offerts en ILE-de-France, mais nos (ir)responsables ont toujours promis de se mettre au niveau dès que l'on leur aura octroyé l'organisation de ladire coupe du monde de foot.
cordialement
Signature : le Prophète (SAAWS) a dit : « Soutiens ton frère qu’il soit oppresseur ou opprimé». Ils dirent « Ô Prophète, nous soutiendrons celui qui est opprimé, mais comment soutenir l’oppresseur ? ». Il répondit : « En l’empêchant d’agir ».
Seuls les utilisateurs enregistrés peuvent poster des messages dans ce forum. Cliquez ici pour vous connecter
Les discussions récentes
Les discussions du même auteur
