The notice on the wall says that a dress code is in place. On the sideboard there is a lifesize replica of the World Cup, assorted trinkets from all over the football world and photographs of figures as diverse as Pelé and Tony Blair. Most curiously of all, there is a sign that reads, “If it has tyres or testicles, you’re going to have trouble with it.”

Welcome to the bizarre domain of Jack Warner, who, wearing a loud shirt that either flouts or defines the dress code in question, sits down quietly and invites questions.

The first is about why we are here in Port of Spain, or, more specifically, why England’s players were bringing a gruelling season to a close last night by playing a friendly match against Trinidad & Tobago, a team ranked 88th in the world, given that he, the figurehead of football on the islands, only last year described England as “an irritant” who were “disliked” within the world game.

His answer is that it has everything to do with celebrating the centenary of the Trinidad & Tobago Football Federation, even though it is clear that the FA is more interested in canvassing for votes in advance of the elections to determine who will host the 2018 World Cup finals.

Asked to explain his previous comments about England and English football, Warner backtracks spectacularly. He says that his answers were misinterpreted, that when he said that the country “has never made any impact on world football”, he was merely expressing regret about its negligible influence in the game’s corridors of power. They are corridors in which he, a former history teacher who has even been accused of corruption by Fifa, the sport’s governing body, holds a degree of power that goes a long way towards explaining why England are here and why, in the words of one source, the FA has been content to “shake hands with the devil”.

Warner is asked whether, in view of England’s visit, he will be more inclined to vote for – and use his influence to persuade others to vote for – the FA’s bid to host the 2018 finals when the bidding process starts in earnest in three years. “As far as I’m concerned, England has consistently had the best bid for hosting the World Cup,” he says. “This game might help to make me more sympathetic towards England, but it really wasn’t the catalyst for any sympathy of mine. My sympathy for England comes from the reality that, after 42 years, England deserves a World Cup. No country of England’s stature and football pedigree should have to wait that long.

“By 2018 it will be 52 years, more than half a century, and that is wrong. And whether England came to Trinidad or not, I would still say the same thing: England is, for me, the country best qualified to host a World Cup.”

He is asked whether he thinks that the FA’s bid will succeed. “That I cannot say,” he replies. “Because you know the politics involved outside big tournaments. In 2006, one of the things they failed to do was get enough of the European votes. You can’t be in Europe and not have the European vote. To me, it is historical. Sometimes one doesn’t know whether England is in Europe or out of Europe. Sometimes the Europeans look at England as a place apart.”

Warner also believes that England suffer because of a lack of dynamism and, conversely, a lack of continuity at the FA, where Brian Barwick is the sixth man to hold the position of chief executive in the past ten years and where Lord Triesman, the recently appointed independent chairman, has yet to make any impression on Warner or other influential figures within Fifa. Warner says that he is disappointed that Triesman could not travel to Trinidad for health reasons, but was more surprised that he did not attend last week’s Fifa congress in Sydney. “You can’t win the bid staying in London, whatever lord or lady you might be,” he says.

A recurring theme of Warner is that the FA lacks the friendly faces and the warmth that would arouse support from within Fifa. Someone asks whether appointing a figure such as David Beckham to front the bid would make a difference. “David Beckham could play a role for England as nobody else can,” he says. “I don’t know what his fees would be, but he can play a role because he is iconic and people love him. He is a world figure, acceptable to everyone. He’s almost like Pelé. Let him be the face of the campaign. Let him sell it for you.

“If the English team had come to Trinidad with all its top stars – Wayne Rooney, Owen Hargreaves – and Beckham wasn’t here, the public in this country would have killed me. If Beckham alone had come, that would have been enough for me.”

Was it part of the agreement with the FA that Beckham would play? “No, never,” Warner says. “In fact, at the very last minute I asked them to tell me whether he was coming. We couldn’t even advertise Beckham because we weren’t even sure he would be here.”

Back to the idea of Beckham as “bid ambassador” and the disturbing notion that such an appointment may transform the perception of a bid. Are the power-brokers of world football really so likely to be star-struck as to have their vote swung by the presence of a celebrity? “It’s human nature,” Warner says. “People vote on emotions. I’ve been there for 25 years and I’ve seen some super bids, first-class bids, lose to inferior bids based on the warmth of the bidder. That might be ridiculous, it might be wrong, but it tells you that voting is about emotion.”

Warner’s many critics would tell you that he is stimulated by more than emotion. Either way, you can bet that last week’s snapshot of him with Beckham will soon be adorning the walls of his office. And for that reason alone, this dubious, politically driven expedition to Trinidad may end up paying dividends farther down the line.