Conference trucks::football;1

    
    France.

    Not if the farmers and truckies have anything to do with it.
    
    jb.

    
    Heard on the radio this morning almost at the same time that
    France were granted the '98 World Cup Platini resigned.
    
    Any ideas on who the sucessor will be?
     
    My uneducated guess will be Alain Girrese.
    
    
    Stephen C.
     

    
    I've heard that it will either be JP Belmondo or Maurice
    Chevalier. The new assistant coach, apparently, could be
    Jane Birkin with Serge Gainsboro slipping in and out as he
    feels like.
    
    JN.

    
    	WHOOSH!!
              
    	Right over my head, I'm afraid, Jeff....
    	Care to enlighten?  8-)
    
    	Andy.

    The provisional list of stadiums is:
    
    Group A - New Paris stadium, Rouen or Lille or Lens
    Group B - Parc de Princes Paris, Strasbourg or Nancy
    Group C - Lyon and Saint-Etienne
    Group D - Marseille and Nice
    Group E - Toulouse and Montpellier
    Group F - Nantes and Bordeaux
    

    New coach : Noah

    
    > New coach : Noah
    
    will they have to come out onto the pitch two-by-two?!?!
    
    ian.

    
    Andy,
    
    I'm just reaping the pesh basically. Belmondo and Chevalier are
    two excellent and famous French actors, Belmondos' films are
    pericularly good.
    
    Jane Birkin and Serge Gainsboro sang a duet called Je t'aime
    quite a number of years ago. Quite simply Jane was singing to 
    Serge in french and Serge was replying "yeah, I'll shag ya later
    alright".
    
    Nothing to do with football really. Just a Friday sense of humour
    I suppose. I'm on vacation from Monday for two weeks.
    
    JN.

    
    	The new coach is likely to be Gerard Houillier, the Platini's 
    assistant.
      Some years ago, he drove the PSG team.
    
      I don't really like this guy. He seems to have footbal conceptions
    a la Taylor....
    
    Pierre-Yves

    
    World Cup in France eh ?  BRILL !!  Not far for the Tartan Army to
    travel to show how great we all are and to give the English hooligan
    elemant a right good showing up  blah blah [CONT P96]
    
    
    Yours in "haven't we heard this before ?" mode,
    Mark

    
    Flame on
    
    How can anyone choose a country to hold the World Cup in which cannot
    get its act together about taming some lorry drivers who are objecting
    to being made to obey the law???!!!??
    
    Flame off!
    
    
    	Seriously, I think its great for France, and if I'm still here
    then, it'll be good for me too!
    
    Ian

    re .9
    
    Minor rathole alert....
    
    Time dims the memory, but the way I recall it was Jane singing/panting
    in French while Serge actually got on with it.......kind of like a
    preview for a Black Adder episode, in retrospect.
    
    Regards,
    Alan

    couldn't find another France 1998 note so this one will have to do
    
    Apparently FIFA have announced the allocation of places for 1998 and
    it's 
    
    Europe 		 15 places   (was 12)
    Africa       	  5 places    was  3
    South America         5 places    was  3
    Asia		  3 places    was  2
    Central/North America 3 places    was  1
    The Holder            1 place     was  1
    The host 		     *	      was  1
    	
    I don't what happened to the place that used to be Oceania v CONACAF
    v SOuth America - maybe this is a conspiracy against the Aussies? The host
    team is apparently subtracted from the regions allocation hence in
    Europe it's 14 qualifiers plus France.
    
    3 teams from central/north america means Mexico plus um well maybe
    trindad & tobago plus um well there's always the U.S!
    
    5 teams from South america doesn't include Brazil this time so the
    Argies should have an easy job and well um are there 4 other countries
    in South America?  
    
    Regards
    
    Andrew.D.Wicks

    
    re: .-1
    
    That's not the list we got down under.  Besides subtracting the
    host from that continents list the holder is also subtracted from
    the holders continent.  This leaves one extra place from the 
    list on -.1  This goes to the winner of
    
    4th placed Asian country  vs  Winners of Oceania Group  (i.e. Oz
    or NZ).

    Oh ok I just entered what was reported here - I would think that
    the 4th place Asian team has to be a better bet than traipsing off
    to CONACAF and then South America.
    
    Regards
    
    Andrew.D.Wicks

    
    Facing Iran or Iraq or North Korea (one of whom I think finished 4th 
    last time) is a bit better than Argentina!!  Don't expect too many 
    fans to go to the away leg though  ;-)

    G'day Parsons,
    	its a bit ridiculous isn't it? '93 we're playing the Argies and in
    '97 it'll be a 4th rate Asian team. If we don't qualify this time it'd be
    like losing the Ashes to the poms. I personally would prefer going to
    Iraq than some other places in Asia such as Singapore, Hong Kong and
    above all Pakistan, come on you aussie cricketers!!!!!!
    
    Ica

    
    There is still the small matter of New Zealand before whoever
    finishes 4th in Asia.  They have been known to spoil things 
    on more than one occasion  ;-)

    Yes indeed, May 1981 at the SCG, Rudi Gutendorf's last stand.
    
    What a shame Frank Arok never made it to a World Cup , he really was
    our best ever coach.

Chaps,
    
    Can anyone confirm the list of stadiums given in .6. It was:
    

    Group A - New Paris stadium, Rouen or Lille or Lens
    Group B - Parc de Princes Paris, Strasbourg or Nancy
    Group C - Lyon and Saint-Etienne
    Group D - Marseille and Nice
    Group E - Toulouse and Montpellier
    Group F - Nantes and Bordeaux
    
thanks
    
    Peter    

    
    Unfortunately, Nice, Strasbourg and Nancy have refused to host the
    WC matches, whereas the FFF did not want Monaco.
    
    Let me have a look on the groups list at home and confirm.
    
    Pierre-Yves 

    Pierre-Yves,
    
    please do
    
    thanks
    

    
    
    can anyone advise the address of a good web page to get some official
    (or unofficial) stuff.
    
    
    Thanks
    Michael
    

    > can anyone advise the address of a good web page to get some official
    >    (or unofficial) stuff.
    
    http://www.fifa.com/fifa/facts/facts.4-97.html
    
    DougO

                            [ Reuters New Media]
Thursday May 8 11:19 AM GMT

Football-World Cup to embrace pay TV revolution

By Keith Weir

LONDON, May 8 (Reuter) - Next year's World Cup finals in France could be
the last time billions of people around the globe are guaranteed seeing the
tournament on free television.

FIFA, world football's governing body, has signed a two billion dollar
television rights deal for the 2002 and 2006 tournaments under which
subscription television appears likely to grab a piece of the action.

FIFA general secretary Sepp Blatter told a conference in London last week
that only key matches were certain to remain on free television, that is
state or advertising funded networks, after the 1998 finals.

"The opening game, one semifinal and the final...They will be shown on free
television," Blatter said. But he did not rule out pay television buying
the rights to other games in what is set to become a 64-match marathon.

The words underline FIFA's determination to maximise television revenue
from an event which it believes it had undersold in recent years.

Under the deal agreed last year, FIFA gave German media group Kirch and
Swiss-based marketing agency ISL the opportunity to sell the rights to the
World Cup on its behalf in return for a share of the revenue.

The two companies have guaranteed FIFA a minimum of 1.3 billion Swiss
francs ($880 million) for the 2002 World Cup to be co-hosted by South Korea
and Japan and at least 1.5 billion francs for the following finals.

The income is used by FIFA to develop the game around the world. It also
passes one million dollars to each of its 200 or so federations every four
years.

FIFA is guaranteed just 135 million Swiss francs for the 1998 finals in
France, part of an agreement signed with television companies back in 1987.

That figure will be revised upwards to take account of the extra games
created by the switch next year from a 24-nation to a 32-country format but
will still fall a long way short of what FIFA regards as fair value.

"Concerning the FIFA World Cup of 1998, you have no problems because it
will still be broadcast by government-supported TV and FIFA will receive
practically nothing in relation to the value of the product today," Blatter
told the London conference.

Television coverage of the World Cup has made players such as Pele and
Diego Maradona famous in every part of the globe.

Football's world governing body insists its guiding principle will remain
that of making matches available to the largest number of people.

It points out that it retains the power of veto over who purchases the
rights. The tournament will also stay on free television in the whole of
Africa, with the sole exception of South Africa.

FIFA spokesman Keith Cooper adds that pay-per-view, the payment of a
specific fee to see individual games, is not part of the World Cup
television equation.

"There are three types of television, what is known as free, pay or
subscription and then pay-per-view," Cooper said.

"Pay-per-view is and remains excluded. We have never made any distinction
between the other two.

"It is early days yet and certain options have to be left open," he added
when asked about the balance between free and pay channels. But he said the
key matches listed by Blatter would be the very minimum left on free TV.

Unlike FIFA, some European countries, notably Britain, France and parts of
Belgium, do distinguish between free and pay television, preventing top
sporting events from migrating to cable or satellite services. The European
Union has taken up the cry and is in the process of seeking to extend the
protection to cover its 15 member states.

Cooper acknowledged that the current European regulatory environment could
complicate the sale of rights but said that the broadcasting landscape in
2002 could be very different from that of today.

One British television executive says that the FIFA position has
"metamorphosised" since the Kirch-ISL deal was announced last year. The
executive, who works for one of Britain's free television networks, detects
an increasing openness on the part of FIFA towards pay television.

But he believes that FIFA would face massive criticism if it tried to leave
free channels in Britain with a bare minimum of games.

"I think there would be a huge outcry if just three games were shown on BBC
and ITV," he said.

"But at the moment we haven't been approached by anyone about 2002. We
won't now where we stand until negotiations begin."

Copyright � 1997 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or
redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited
without the written consent of Reuters Limited
                  Comments to: [email protected]

    Following the appointment of the new Sports Minister, someone who
    already has expressed opposition to this sort of thing it'll be
    interesting to see how far this goes in the UK. I can't see him doing
    too much against SKY though, the price of the SUN supporting the Labour
    party methinks...
    
    Alen.

    
    Re -2
    
    What EXACTLY is that FIFA does to "promote/develop the game around the
    world"  ?????   I think the $billions will go towards junkets for the
    FIFA including hotel bill, meals and drinkies.
    
    Claiming this is like claiming you are promoting beer to an alcoholic,
    the game is the biggest sport in every country (except here in North
    America)....suppose they'll say they gave a few quid to Outer Mongolia
    for a footie pitch...
    
    ....anyway..their PRIME investment should be Estonia...buy a set of
    f*****n floodlights...
    
    Twev

Re -3
(I'll try to be sensible 8-))

I was under the impression that the government in the UK were opposed to payment 
 for major public events anyway ?

 I see here that FIFA has decided that it can make some serious money and maybe 
this is partly becasue of the situation in the UK recently with the huge 
injection of SKY money from TV coverage. The 'spreading of the money to promote 
football' is a farce to cover up the obvious money grabbing tactics of FIFA.

 Unfortunatly I fail to see how it can be overturned, if FIFA say so, it has to 
be pay TV. The UK FA does not have enough clout to stop any decision made, and I 
doubt whether any other FA from round the world has a similar strength. 

It'll be interesting to see, whether any country takes legal action on this, IMO 
I think it's unlikely as FIFA will bung some money to the FA's in all countries, 
and they may moan to the media, but they'll be rubbing their hands (etc) behind 
closed doors.

Mad
P.S. If this works, watch the Olympics disappear next.

    Re -1
    
    The government holds a list of events that are not allowed to be pay TV
    only. Such as the Grand National, CUP Final etc. Expect this list to
    get much bigger soon, and expect it to contain the World Cup and the
    Olympics (if the Olympics aren't already on it). The European
    government as a whole is also looking at this issue of pay TV and
    taking things away from the poor oppressed workers!!! So even if FIFA
    DO decide to proceed with this, if the UK government puts the World Cup
    on the hands off list then SKY etc. won't be allowed to be the only
    ones showing it, so FIFA will take what money they can from the UK, ie
    the Beeb and ITV.
    
    Mind you, I'm not exactly a Commercial Contract Lawyer, so what the
    hell do I know. I do know that Mr Banks will do all he can to stop the
    rot though, he's not exactly part of the 'New' labour party, he's well
    and truly a lefty!
    
    Alen.

    
    re .last
    
    The UK government has no power to insist that any non-UK event is
    made available 'free of charge' on terrestrial television. 
    
    Whilst the prospect of pay per view may be good news for the likes
    of BSkyB I can't see the advertisers and sponsors putting up with it.
    They spend large amounts of money to be associated with sporting events
    because of the TV coverage. If that coverage is only watched by a 
    million or so viewers, what is the benefit to the sponsors?  What
    the likes of FIFA make on TV rights they may well lose in sponsorship.
    
    Richard.
    
    

ref prev,
 Yes, good point, but would sponsors really have that much say ?
 So it'd only be to 1M viewers, the BSKYB money would make that up surely ?


 Just a thought.
 (Damn, that's my only one today !)

 Mad