24 teams for Euro 2016

Like England?

Stop being a juvenile c**t and let the grown-ups have a conversation for one. We're trying to discuss the impact on the Euros and you want to change the subject to get your little punchline in for the umpteenth time. I really don't see why you are intent on ruining decent football conversations - are you really that self-centred? You don't see us gate-crashing the Gunners thread to force single topics, so do the sensible thing and f**k off.

Calm down mate.
Arsenal2008-09-29 07:09:42

As an aside, does anyone know which countries are bidding to host the 2016 tournament?

Looking at Wiki, there seem to have been a few updates:

Scotland/Wales and Scotland/Ireland would be really good. But would they have enough stadia to support a 24 team tournament?
That's another thing I've been thinking about, expanding the tournament now means that there's fewer countries that could actually host the tournament, as the number of games in the tournament will almost double. And that's bad news for smaller countries, who at least had a hope of co-hosting the 16 team tournament (Croatia had bids with Bosnia for 2008, and Hungary for 2012).

That's a good point. Still, UEFA have never issued a statement like FIFA saying they wouldn't co-host again (though FIFA have since given conflicting signals on that too). I think we will see more co-hosting in the Euros. With a 16 team tournament, co-hosting took away an additional qualification spot - not especially popular with those trying to qualify. With 24 that shouldn't be a concern.

Well, I think it doesn't sound like a lot, but really even 4 good venues is a challenge for smaller countries - was certainly for both Austria and Switzerland this year. Add two more, and both those countries would have really struggled.
6 to-class venues would be impossible for Croatia for example, and many other countries with the population, let's say, under 15 million. Given the way Europe's fragmented over the last 20 years or so, I think expanding the tournament would likely rule out more countries as potential co-hosts, let alone stand-alone hosts.
For example, looking at the Scotland/Wales or Scotland/Ireland scenarion, is it realistic to expect those countries to provide 12 top-class venues between them? I think it'd be very difficult. I just think it's another issue that should have been discussed before this decision was made.

Do you think they could do it with 8 venues? And if so, would Croatia have 4 that are potential venues?

I was just reading through the potential venues for Wales. Apart from the Millenium Stadium, it seems like a stretch for the others. Even Scotland have only 4 at the moment and 3 of those are in one city. For their 2008 bid, they included an additional Edinburgh stadium plus Aberdeen and Dundee with redevelopment plans. What surprised me is that Ireland have quite a few options. I never knew they had seven 30,000+ stadiums.

I wonder if UEFA would seriously entertain three co-hosts. Previously, you would have to say no way. 24 teams in the finals might open up the possibility for three hosts?

It is disingenuous, at best, to spend your forum time winding people up and then to merely say "calm down" when you get the result you've been looking for in the first place. From the emails I have received, I am just saying what many people have been thinking. Now if you don't mind, El Grap and I were having an interesting conversation on topic to this thread.

From the emails you've been receiving? Wow.

You're a popular lad Arsenal. But then again why wouldn't you be, being a gooner and all.

Being a Gooner is irrelevant. Crashing threads, changing the topics to his favourite punchline and killing any existing discussion in an attempt to wind up is what does it. Way to enhance the forum and piss people off. Most people hold their tongue. I have most of the time, but let him get under my skin this time and managed to get several messages of support (though they also said to not let him provoke as that is what he wants).

Keep the personal attacks coming SiNZ.

Back on topic or I shut it down and wave ban sticks.

Wow quite intense..

SiNZ2008-09-30 10:06:01

And as a PS, UEFA have been looking at the proposal since at least Jan 2007 at the latest:

Surely England are one of the richest nations that could participate in Euro, along with one of the largest population bases of football fans.

No England = lower ticket sales and, more importantly, lower television revenue. 

Not that this is all about England, is it? The lack of England at the last Euros did not appear to have any impact on the financial performance of the tournament, whatever the English tabloids would say.

Certainly it's not all about England, but being such a relatively large market I would say that, equally, it is probably relatively largely about England. 

Europe is big enough financially to not notice the absence of one country that usually qualifies. It would take a series of surprise non-qualifications to reach that status. No one country has that much financial muscle.

Returning to the impact of the increase, look at the teams that are in the bracket that will mainly be affected by the change by breaking down the qualification records of Europe:

Have been off-line the last couple of days, so I'll try to address all the issues raised lately in one poat:

1. The co-hosting - I think Scotland and Ireland could provide 8 venues. I think they have enough population centres and stadia that could be upgraded to do so, but I think they would really struggle to provide 12 venues. Not sure about Wales - I think Swansea is a big enough city, and may have a stadium that could be upgraded, but don't know much about their other options (Wrexham, Llanelli?). Croatia's plan for the 2012 bid (as a co-host with Hungary) was to provide 4 venues: Maksimir in Zagreb (the upgrade is still on, aiming for a 60,000 capacity, current one is 39,000), Poljud in Split (pretty good at the moment, 35,000 capacity), re-develop the stadium in Osijek (currently holds about 25,000, would have pretty much been torn down and re-erected as a 30,000 all seater, but probably won't happen now), and build a new one in Rijeka, which also won't happen now. Six venues are practically an impossibility for Croatia. Given UEFA's willingness to employ co-hosts for the 3 of the last 4 tournaments, I guess it's probably not too much of a stretch to see them have 3 co-hosts, but that could be very difficult to organise. It would be the only way a country like Croatia could ever hope to host a 24-team tournament.

2. As for Arsenal's mention of this being about England, both UEFA and FIFA are obviously interested in having big footballing nations in the finals tournaments (by this I mean big national teams with big populations, such as Germany, Spain, Italy, England, France, Argentina, Brazil) because of revenues raised through TV rights, advertising, and other such things, but this has always been the part of the way these organisations work. I mean, it's in vogue to take pot shots at England now because they didn't qualify for EURO 2008, but the same could go for the last expansion in 1996, after Spain and Italy had failed to qualify for EURO 92. Is there a co-relation between the expansion and failure of some of the bigger teams to qualify for the tournament occassionally? Probably, because of the financial reasons, but I don't think the point needs to be laboured. Another example I just remembered: in qualifying for WC 2006, Spain just barely scraped through to be second in their group and earn a right to a play-off. Then FIFA all of a sudden decides that they'll seed the European play-offs (for the first time!) so that Spain ended up playing Slovakia, rather than the stronger teams in Czech Republic and Turkey. It's just the way it goes, it's not England's or Spain's fault, it's just that UEFA and FIFA like to maximise their revenue intake without resorting to cheating.

3. It's a very interesting list you've posted SiNZ, but I think it's a bit skewed given how many new times have emerged in Europe over the last few years. Looking at it, I can see maybe 5 teams in the first group who are very good (Bosnia, Finland, Israel, Slovakia, Ukraine, and Montenegro are more than decent too), they should be ahead of many of the teams in the second group in terms of actual expectations of qualification.

I understand mate, it's just that I'd just tried to make a similar point on a similar topic on a different forum and they just didn't/couldn't get it.