Euros to expand to 24 teams in 2016

[Greenforever]

4 groups of 6 - 5 matches per country

Group winners only to qualify

Semi Finals

Final

[pineapple stu]

That was 82 by the way!
So it was!

[mypost]

4 groups of 6 - 5 matches per country

Group winners only to qualify

Semi Finals

Final

That would take about 2 months!!!!

6 groups of 4; winners, runners-up, 4 best 3rd place teams qualify, second round onwards (aka "last 16" :rolleyes: to commentators) = knockout.

[Morbo]

For Irelands sake I'm glad its going to be 24 but I think the right amount in regards to the quality of the Tournament would be 20 teams, 5 groups of 4 with the winners of each group going though to the quarters along with the best 2nd placed team, the other 4 2nd placed teams play each other in a playoff for the remaining 2 spots in the quarters

[EalingGreen]

4 groups of 6 - 5 matches per country
Group winners only to qualify

Semi Finals

Final

Four Groups of six teams will mean that after the first 3 or 4 matches, half the teams (at least) will be completely out of contention, thereby creating a load of utterly meaningless matches to finish with. Interest will tail off completely.

The great thing about the present system is that organising 16 broadly comparable teams into Groups of Four, with the top two qualifying, is that most games in most Groups are meaningful. For example, it is possible for a team to lose its first match and still qualify with two wins, or even a win and a draw.

Expanding it to 20 or 24 teams inevitably means that the gap in quality between top and bottom teams is stretched, so there is greater scope for uncompetitive games. And anything other than two qualifying from a Group of four teams, means a much higher percentage of meaningless games.

Imo, it wasn't "broke", so can anyone supporting expansion give me any reason why we should "fix" it (other than selfishly improving their own team's chance of qualifying)?

[DaveyCakes]

Absoultely ridiculous. There's 53 teams in UEFA, so nearly half of them will be involved in the finals. The Euros have been better than world cups, because of the overall higher standard of teams in it.

What next? Scrap the qualifiers altogether and just let everyone in?

"Welcome to our exclusive coverage of San Marino versus Azerbaijan, live from the three-quarters empty Bernabeu in Madrid"

[DaveyCakes]

This is not the CL. This is the European Championships. No byes, no elitism, and everyone is invited, the way it should be. 16 teams of 53 sounds elitist imo, 24 is right. The quality won't suffer. Most teams will be very competitive.

No elitism? The whole point is to find the best team in Europe, i.e. the ELITE.

[Morbo]

What next? Scrap the qualifiers altogether and just let everyone in?


Don't be silly.
How do you split 53 teams into groups, we need to have qualifiers to eliminate 1, then we can have 13 goups of 4

[jebus]

Terrible idea, if Ireland were good enough we'd be able to qualify under the fair system that is in place now. Expanding it is just to draw in more tourist money for the host country, no other reason, certainly no football reason as the quality of this tournament shows the system works, and anyone who wants to expand it to let Ireland in is whats wrong with modern day football in my eyes. Everyone out for themselves, no one giving a crap about long term consequences to the game. The Champions League has been ruined by expanding it, the World Cup group stages are a joke due to expansion, and now we're expected to buy that this won't dilute the quality. ******** is all it is and another nail in the closing casket of football

[Closed Account 2]

There are pros and cons to any tournament expansion, but on balance I think it would be a good idea.

A lot of the teams who just missed out (e.g. Serbia, Bosnia, Belgium) are good teams and I think they could have done better than the likes of Greece (who were statistically the best qualifiers).

Latin America has arguably, team for team, the strongest level of international football. All their teams are involved in competitive football - they all get to go to the Copa America and all play each other for World Cup qualifiers (every team plays every team, the small nations like Bolivia are always going to play Brazil twice). Teams which were once poor (like Venezuela and Ecuador) are now able to compete internationally as they get the high level of exposure to quality teams. Additionally the inclusion of the likes of Mexico can improve guest teams. Even when Honduras and Japan were included in Copa Americas it gave them a chance to compete a good level and valuable experience.

On the other hand the Asian and African international competitions have a ridgid structure which usually sees the same handfull of entrants get in the the African Nations Cup and the Asia Cup. When it comes to world cup qualifiying in these regions new teams rarely break through (as they can't build up enough experience) and you have an oligarchary of mediocrity which sees whipping boys like Saudi Arabia and Tunisia at every World Cup.

I'm for it as it will give middle range UEFA nations a good level of international experience. Instead of playing one game at home or away every 2-3 months international players will get the chance to form genuine team units and have valuable tournament experience. This should even things out between UEFA nations in the long run and we may see the balance of power shift away from the old guard (Italy, Germany, France etc) and new teams come to the fore (like Bosnia, Macedonia, Israel etc) or the re-emergence of old powers (Hungary, Belgium, Russia*).

*arguably this is now happening with Russia.

[Closed Account 2]

Another thing about the infrastructure, at the moment yes only the big European countries have the required facilities.

But if UEFA and/or the EU got their chequebook out then, with co-hosting, this wouldn't be a problem.

For instance, with a bit of investment the following co-hosts could hold it.

Hungary / Croatia
Croatia / Serbia
Serbia / Romania
Serbia / Bulgaria
Romania / Bulgaria
Czech Rep / Slovak Rep
Latvia / Lithuania / Estonia (bit of a push this one)
2 of Denmark / Norway / Sweden
Ireland / Scotland

And again if they spent a similar amount to Euro 2004 the following countries should all be able to to host it

Turkey
Russia
Greece

And it has been virtually a generation since the Spanish got to hold a tournament on home soil.

[jebus]

A lot of the teams who just missed out (e.g. Serbia, Bosnia, Belgium) are good teams and I think they could have done better than the likes of Greece (who were statistically the best qualifiers).



Well why not just scrap qualifiers and run a poll on Uefa.com for who should be the 24 teams every four years in that case? If these teams were good enough they would have qualified

[Morbo]

I'd be more concerned about letting ****e countries host it, Switzerland and especially Austria are worse than the extra 8 teams that would be allowed in under the new system

[EalingGreen]

Another thing about the infrastructure, at the moment yes only the big European countries have the required facilities.

But if UEFA and/or the EU got their chequebook out then, with co-hosting, this wouldn't be a problem.

For instance, with a bit of investment the following co-hosts could hold it.

Hungary / Croatia
Croatia / Serbia
Serbia / Romania
Serbia / Bulgaria
Romania / Bulgaria
Czech Rep / Slovak Rep
Latvia / Lithuania / Estonia (bit of a push this one)
2 of Denmark / Norway / Sweden
Ireland / Scotland

And again if they spent a similar amount to Euro 2004 the following countries should all be able to to host it

Turkey
Russia
Greece

And it has been virtually a generation since the Spanish got to hold a tournament on home soil.

With 24 teams you would need at least 8 or 10 stadia, each with a minimum 30k capacity. Many of those countries you cite would have no need for them after the tournament (even 4 or 5 each, if shared between two countries). Take the example of ROI. Considering Lansdowne (and Croke) are already available, where would you put the other two or three stadia with a capacity of 30k or even 40k? What use would they get after the tournament? Remember that these could not be just basic shoebox-style constructions - they would need media centres and security features etc if used in a major tournament, plus access roads and other infrastructure*.

Rather, if enormous sums are going to be justified being spent by on stadia (debateable, imo), these should be on more modest facilities (e.g. 10k seaters), spread more widely throughout each individual country, and also in every country in Europe, not just those few who get to host a share of a major Championship once every 50 years.


* - You might as well spend the money building, say, major international airports in Limerick and Knock ;)

[Closed Account 2]

Assuming Ireland co-host it then 4 would be needed (half of the 8-10 as the other half would be in Scotland etc). Lansdowne and Croke would be two (like Stade de France and Parc des Princes in WC1998) and then 2 stadiums could be built in Cork and Limerick. Cork has a population of nearly 200,000 more than Saltzburg or Innsbruck and Limerick has a population of around 85000, which is just a shade under Klagenfurt and more than Aviero and Lieria (both venues in Euro 2004, infact Galway has more than these 2).

I agree the road and rail links would need to be improved but to be honest the goverment should have done this a long time ago. An international tournament would hopefully give them the drive to do it.

The stadiums could be multi purpose and used for Rugby and GAA (if GAA allowed).



http://www.tageo.com/index-e-ei-cities-IE.htm
http://www.mongabay.com/igapo/2005_world_city_populations/Austria.html

[jebus]

God just had a horrible vision of 20,000 Germans stranded in Dublin on the morning of a quarter final in Cork because an Irish Rail drivers coffee wasn't hot enough and he's 'in a mood'

[EalingGreen]

Assuming Ireland co-host it then 4 would be needed (half of the 8-10 as the other half would be in Scotland etc). Lansdowne and Croke would be two (like Stade de France and Parc des Princes in WC1998)

Do not assume that UEFA would be happy with one medium sized city, without a noted footballing tradition like, say Glasgow or Liverpool, to host two Groups. And do not assume the GAA will allow Croke to be used to stage games not including ROI for a tournament which is promoting a competing sport. Do not assume that Croke would even be available in June (GAA mid-season).

and then 2 stadiums could be built in Cork and Limerick. Cork has a population of nearly 200,000 more than Saltzburg or Innsbruck and Limerick has a population of around 85000, which is just a shade under Klagenfurt and more than Aviero and Lieria (both venues in Euro 2004, infact Galway has more than these 2).

Two modern stadia, with capacities of say 30k and 40k would cost a minimum of €200m (possibly much more). This would be for a few tournament games. Who is going to play in these stadia for the rest of their 50-100 year lifespan? What football club in either Cork or Limerick could guarantee crowds of even 5k per game?
And do not be deceived by mere population figures - otherwise India would be staging the next World Cup! Portugal, with e.g. two separate European Cup winning clubs from a fully functioning professional League, has a much greater footballing tradition than ROI, therefore a much greater need for the stadia built for Euro2004 - and even then, some of them are still half-empty since then.


I agree the road and rail links would need to be improved but to be honest the goverment should have done this a long time ago. An international tournament would hopefully give them the drive to do it.

If the Govt couldn't/wouldn't spend money on essential infrastructure to support commerce, industry, major population centres, airports, universities, hospitals, schools etc etc etc before now, why on earth would they do so to support a one-off, three week sports event? Get real.

The stadiums could be multi purpose and used for Rugby and GAA (if GAA allowed).


No they couldn't. For one thing, football stadia are too small to stage GAA games and nobody connected with football anywhere is going to spend millions of extra Euros to accommodate a competing sport. Plus both rugby and GAA already have/will have provincial stadia of their own, built with their own money, to their own design and capacity, located in their traditional heartlands. Why on earth would they abandon that investment and tradition to pay rent to someone else to use a stadium not designed for their purpose and not under their control? Plus elements within GAA, at least, hate football, to the extent that some would cut off their nose to spite their face.

Anyhow, even if the above hurdles were somehow surmountable, your whole thesis falls apart anyway, since it is based on one total misconception, namely, that UEFA might be willing to spend millions on helping the FAI build new stadia. Such a notion is entirely contrary to what actually happens. Countries bid/compete to stage such championships. They do so by offering to pay for the staging from their own resources - usually a combination of domestic Government, local Football Association and professional clubs. If no bidding country is able to come up with these resources, UEFA awards the Finals to another one who can. Consequently, UEFA makeshuge profits from their share of gate receipts, Media and Corporate etc, which they then disburse amongst all their 53 Member Associations. There is no way the other 51 Members would ever agree to those profits to be used to build stadia for the benefit of just two members jointly co-hosting a three wekk tournament, then standing idly by whilst those stadia remain 3/4 empty for the next 50 years.

The fact is, if the Euro Finals expand beyond 16 clubs, then ROI can kiss goodbye to their hope of ever even co-hosting future tournaments. Why do I say this? Because that is what Scotland, a country with much greater footballing resources and tradition than ROI, have just said. Moreover, having identified 2016 as their probable last ever chance, the Scots are likely to approach Wales to see if they could co-host that tournament with them. For some reason, the Scottish FA seems a lot less keen than formerly on co-hosting with ROI...

[ifk101]

Agree with you EG that Ireland will not host a EUROs anytime soon. But Limerick does have a decent sized stadium in development - see here:

http://www.munsterrugby.ie/80_8270.php

And for arguement's sake, a groundshare between Munster Rugby and Cork City could perhaps produce a viable stadium - ala EURO 2008 where capacity could be reduced after the tournament.

Croke Park doesn't necessarily need to be the second Dublin venue. Maybe the RDS could be used.

And another option could be a groundshare between Galway United and Connaught Rugby - similar to what I dreamed up with Cork City and Munster.

But yes it's not going to happen ;)

[Newryrep]

This is all to do with money and making sure none of the big footballing nations miss out - Even England couldn't fail to get out of a group where the top 3 qualify.

It is obviously a benefit to us but maybe the other ones were so special because we only make it every so often - (1 out of every 2 tournamnets isnt to much to ask). If we make it all the time would the experience be devalued a bit ?. I think Gspain made the point i another thread that there were only 7000 Germans at Japan/Korea much less than the Irish however if you are German you can practically pick and choose which tournaments you can go to as you qualify for them all.

Overall from a selfish point of view probably a good thing as I want us to qualify for a tournament when I am at an age where i prefer beer rather than cocoa at 10.00pm on a Sat night..

[EalingGreen]

But Limerick does have a decent sized stadium in development - see here:

http://www.munsterrugby.ie/80_8270.php

And for arguement's sake, a groundshare between Munster Rugby and Cork City could perhaps produce a viable stadium - ala EURO 2008 where capacity could be reduced after the tournament.
Not even close:
"The principal elements of the project will see the erection of two new stands adjacent to the existing main pitch, offering a seating capacity for 15,100 and terrace capacity of 10,530, or 25,630 in all."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomond_Park
The absolute minimum UEFA requirement is 30k seats, all covered, no terracing. And that's before you get to UEFA's Tournament requirements for Media, Security, Corporate facilities etc, which will be far in excess of anything Munster will need for rugby.
And even if Cork City were willing to move from their present site, Munster clearly feel they require 25k plus capacity, so will never agree to any new stadium being reduced to a size suiting Cork city (10k?)


Croke Park doesn't necessarily need to be the second Dublin venue. Maybe the RDS could be used.

Bonkers. UEFA have pages and pages of regulations of requirements to ensure Stadia are suitable to stage Euro Finals games - the RDS won't even come close.
And in any case, I doubt whether they would allow a city of Dublin's size to host two Groups, even if RDS/Croke etc were suitable.


And another option could be a groundshare between Galway United and Connaught Rugby - similar to what I dreamed up with Cork City and Munster.

The key word is "dream". Who in their right mind is going to build a modern 30k all seater stadium for two sports teams, neither of whom attracts more than 5k spectators and both of whose very existence as a professional concern is in doubt?


But yes it's not going to happen ;)
With you on that one! :)

[EalingGreen]

On reflection, the chief argument of those who want to see the Euro Finals expanded seems to be that it should give ROI a greater chance of qualifying.
But the easist way to guarantee qualification is to (co)host the tournament.
However, if the finals are extended beyond 16 teams, that effectively rules out any chance of ROI ever (co)hosting them.

[Wolfie]

Terrible idea, if Ireland were good enough we'd be able to qualify under the fair system that is in place now.

That sums it up for me.

[ifk101]

Not even close:
"The principal elements of the project will see the erection of two new stands adjacent to the existing main pitch, offering a seating capacity for 15,100 and terrace capacity of 10,530, or 25,630 in all."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomond_Park
The absolute minimum UEFA requirement is 30k seats, all covered, no terracing. And that's before you get to UEFA's Tournament requirements for Media, Security, Corporate facilities etc, which will be far in excess of anything Munster will need for rugby.

A few extra slabs of concrete, bit of plastic here and there, a bit of wiring and it's sorted.


so will never agree to any new stadium being reduced to a size suiting Cork city (10k?)

You'd be surprised

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musgrave_Park%2C_Cork
http://www.breakingnews.ie/archives/?c=SPORT&jp=mheymhsnqlmh&d=2008-01-11


Bonkers. UEFA have pages and pages of regulations of requirements to ensure Stadia are suitable to stage Euro Finals games - the RDS won't even come close.
And in any case, I doubt whether they would allow a city of Dublin's size to host two Groups, even if RDS/Croke etc were suitable.

According to wikipedia? ;)


The key word is "dream". Who in their right mind is going to build a modern 30k all seater stadium for two sports teams, neither of whom attracts more than 5k spectators and both of whose very existence as a professional concern is in doubt?

They can throw a greyhound track around and that'll solve that problem. Nick Leeson can perhaps open another XXXXX account and keep it under raps until the stadium is built.


With you on that one! :)

Of course you are.

[Morbo]

On reflection, the chief argument of those who want to see the Euro Finals expanded seems to be that it should give ROI a greater chance of qualifying.
But the easist way to guarantee qualification is to (co)host the tournament.
However, if the finals are extended beyond 16 teams, that effectively rules out any chance of ROI ever (co)hosting them.

Getting to host it is a long shot to begin with and even if we got it it would only guarantee qualification for 1 tourny, the end result is that we will qualify for more Euro's if they expand it

[jebus]

Getting to host it is a long shot to begin with and even if we got it it would only guarantee qualification for 1 tourny, the end result is that we will qualify for more Euro's if they expand it

And if they make the Euros a competition just between us and San Marino we'll win it a lot more! Let's do that!

[kingdom hoop]

First, EG et al there've been enough threads on Ireland's suitability for hosting before. No need to deface a largely unrelated thread with more pipe-dream speculation and smug denouncings.


Anyways, I hadn't read about this and there doesn't seem to be any source in the thread, so here's one (http://sports.yahoo.com/sow/news?slug=reu-europlatiniexpansion&prov=reuters&type=lgns). In brief, apparently it's been unanimously agreed, 100% to happen, instigated by SFA and FAI.

At first blush I wasn't particularly enamoured with the idea. But I'm more undecided now, primarily on the basis that we'll presumably see the slightly long-winded and poor standard qualification process changed, pared down to maybe 5/6 teams per group with two to qualify, with the focus shifting towards a more competitive if now-less-illustrious festival of European football. In other words build international football more around the tournament when teams have time to prepare and build momentum rather than intermittent matches. I think that'd help standards overall.

Also, with a realistic, regular chance of qualifying the profile of football in most countries, from Cyprus to Ireland, will be much greater. Marginal fans and the general populace will have much more interest and teams will start to demand more of themselves given there's an attainable goal to aim for. With that in mind I wouldn't say qualification will be the foregone conclusion for Ireland that some may think.


I don't think the idea is the saviour of international football but I wouldn't say it's a terrible idea either.

[boovidge]

i'm totally against expansion of the euros. the present system works pefectly. i'd love to see ireland qualifying for more tournaments but only on merit, not just because every half decent team gets in. we didn't deserve to qualify last time and neither did any of the british nations who all bottled it against weaker teams. many people on here spend their well earned money and time going to all corners of europe to support their team. do you really want that experience reduced because it doesn't matter what the result is as we'd probably qualify anyway?

[Morbo]

I don't see how expanding it can be a bad thing(for Ireland) sure we might have slightly lower quality group stage games but the cream should always cum out on top by the knockout stages anyway and Ireland playing regulary in major Tounaments can only be of benefit to getting kids to pick up the game in the first place, of course money is the main factor behind the change but that doesn't automatically mean its a bad idea

[RogerMilla]

For some reason, the Scottish FA seems a lot less keen than formerly on co-hosting with ROI...

frankly they would be fools if they ever got into bed with us again ,
the whole hosting thing is a vanity excercise unless you already have the stadia, which we dont , so in my opinion íts non-starter as regards hosting the Euros.


the 32 team euros i am massively in favour of as i said, we have a history of doing well in tournaments and i'm sure we would uphold that tradition were we to be continually qualifying for the championship every four years.

[jbyrne]

frankly they would be fools if they ever got into bed with us again ,
the whole hosting thing is a vanity excercise unless you already have the stadia, which we dont , so in my opinion íts non-starter as regards hosting the Euros.


germany, portugal, austria and switzerland all had to dramatically renovate / re-build / build from scratch stadiums to host recent tournaments. SA are currently doing a lot of stadium building for wc 2010 and ukraine and poland likewise for the next euros. no one ever has the full compliment of stadiums prior to winning the right to host an international competition

[jebus]

the 32 team euros i am massively in favour of as i said, we have a history of doing well in tournaments and i'm sure we would uphold that tradition were we to be continually qualifying for the championship every four years.

We've qualified for 4 tournaments in the history of both the World Cup and the European Championships and made an impression on two. We've never been to a semi final, nor do we look likely to for the foreseeable future. On this basis how do we have a history of doing well in tournaments? You do realise the qualification process is part of the tournament too right?

[Morbo]

I think we've done fairly well in all 4
Euro 88: beat England and were within 8 minutes of the semis
WC90: going out to the hosts in the quarters wasn't too shabby
WC94: beat Italy and only lost to a very good Dutch team in the 2nd round.
WC02: were undefeated and took Spain to a shootout.

So I think its fair to say we achieved more than was expected in all 4 of the major competitions we have qualified for

[seanfhear]

I think we've done fairly well in all 4
Euro 88: beat England and were within 8 minutes of the semis
WC90: going out to the hosts in the quarters wasn't too shabby
WC94: beat Italy and only lost to a very good Dutch team in the 2nd round.
WC02: were undefeated and took Spain to a shootout.

So I think its fair to say we achieved more than was expected in all 4 of the major competitions we have qualified for
I doubt that many countries with a similiar qualifying record could beat that.Scotland have a terrible record at the tournaments but a pretty good record qualifying for world cups[historically]

[EalingGreen]

First, EG et al there've been enough threads on Ireland's suitability for hosting before. No need to deface a largely unrelated thread with more pipe-dream speculation and smug denouncings.

My first post (#46) was a simple agreement with Stojkovic, when he argued against expanding the tournament.
My next two (#49, #55) followed a widening (by others) of the thread on how increasing the teams would affect the format of the Finals.
Post #67 was in direct response to Edmundo's post, where he speculated on which countries, including ROI, could host or co-host an enlarged Finals, as were #70 and 73.
And my post #74 was in direct response to IFK101, who took the "ROI to host it" theme further.

Therefore at no stage did I lead this thread off topic, yet you choose to single me out for blame, rather than those various posters to whom I was only replying.

Further, there were no pipe-dreams from me; on the contrary, I was actually debunking some of the more fanciful pipe-dreams of others (inc the idea that UEFA might pay the FAI hundreds of millions of euros to co-host a future Finals)

Finally, I was in no way "smug" when I "denounced" what imo was unrealistic speculation. If you imagine that I take some sort of pleasure in the fact that the ROI is nowhere near suited to be a candidate to host even a 16 team Finals, e,g, with Scotland, then that says far more about you than it does about me. For the record, I'd be perfectly happy if FAI were to stage the Finals with one of the four "Home" Associations, since it would make my own attendance so much cheaper and easier, as well as likely being fine hosts.




At first blush I wasn't particularly enamoured with the idea. But I'm more undecided now, primarily on the basis that we'll presumably see the slightly long-winded and poor standard qualification process changed, pared down to maybe 5/6 teams per group with two to qualify, with the focus shifting towards a more competitive if now-less-illustrious festival of European football.
With 24 teams to qualify, via two teams from each Group, you would need 12 Groups. At present, UEFA has only 53 Members, therefore seven Qualifying Groups would have 4 teams and five Groups would have 5 teams.
Further, with at least eight countries being "no-hopers" - San Marino, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Kazakstan, Azerbaijan, Faroes, Andorra and Malta - all of the five team Groups would effectively have four teams and two of the four team Groups would effectively have only three contenders.
Add to this the fact that Iceland, Cyprus, Estonia, Lithuania and Belarus have hardly much stronger hopes of progressing, then the qualification process would often be little more than choosing two teams from three.
Worse still, by the luck of the draw, you could have a Group where the third team is actually not that good, so that the top two teams are all but guaranteed to Qualify.
Alternatively, you might get a Group where the third and fourth teams are the strongest of their particular seeds, thereby producing a much harder Group than others. (For example, in Euro2008 Qualifying, NI were 6th Seeds, yet finished third in a tough Group)


In other words build international football more around the tournament when teams have time to prepare and build momentum rather than intermittent matches. I think that'd help standards overall.

I don't understand this.


Also, with a realistic, regular chance of qualifying the profile of football in most countries, from Cyprus to Ireland, will be much greater. Marginal fans and the general populace will have much more interest and teams will start to demand more of themselves given there's an attainable goal to aim for. With that in mind I wouldn't say qualification will be the foregone conclusion for Ireland that some may think.

The profile may be raised in those 12 -15 countries whose Qualification hopes of being in the extra 8 are increased, but what happens when the Finals themselves come along?
Inevitably, the extra eight will perform much more like the poorer teams at Euro2008 (e.g. Greece, Poland), than the top teams (Spain, Netherlands). Many of them will effectively be eliminated after their first two games. Therefore, the majority of the extra games produced by adding 8 teams will be meaningless as to outcome and/or of mediocre standard.
Consequently, you might be interested in your own team's progress, but how much interest will you have in a game between e.g. Belgium and Hungary?



I don't think the idea is the saviour of international football but I wouldn't say it's a terrible idea either.
Despite my having no affiliation whatever with any of the Finalists for Euro2008, I enjoyed this Tournament more than any other for years. This was because the majority of games were open and exciting, competitive and skilful, which in turn was (imo) because it only involved the elite teams.
Moreover, I thoroughly enjoyed the Qualifiers, even though my own team fell short.
My fear is that if we extend the Tournament, then the quality of both the Finals AND the Qualifiers will suffer, to no-ones overall good, bar the Accountants. And that's not what football should be about, as far as I'm concerned.

As for NI being more likely to qualify - and we were amongst the top eight third placed teams, btw - I don't particularly want to see us just making up the numbers. On each of the three occasions when we have qualified, it was because we had an unusually good team, and so were going off to Sweden, Spain and Mexico with realistic hopes of doing ourselves proud.
The same applied, I dare say, to those ROI teams which qualified in their turn.

In the end, if I wanted to support a mediocre bunch of also-rans at a major sporting finals, I'd follow the Ireland Rugby team! ;)

[irishultra]

I think Ireland's now team has more talent than the 2002 team against Spain.

[jebus]

So I think its fair to say we achieved more than was expected in all 4 of the major competitions we have qualified for

And the dozens we've failed to advance past the first stage (qualification)? I mean we've qualified for 4/31 tournaments, thats not what I would call a good record

[cavan_fan]

And the dozens we've failed to advance past the first stage (qualification)? I mean we've qualified for 4/31 tournaments, thats not what I would call a good record

Are you intentionally missing the point?

What he was saying was that we dont qualify that often but when we do we do well at the tournament itself. Our record in the World Cup FINALS is amazing. I cant imagine many teams have qualified for the tournament 3 times and got out of their group each time. (Compare to Scotland who have never gotten out of their group).

The relevance is that for some reason we do well at the tournaments themselves. I suspect there is something around team spirit here but irrespective of the reason this seems accurate.

[irishfan86]

Are you intentionally missing the point?

What he was saying was that we dont qualify that often but when we do we do well at the tournament itself. Our record in the World Cup FINALS is amazing. I cant imagine many teams have qualified for the tournament 3 times and got out of their group each time. (Compare to Scotland who have never gotten out of their group).

The relevance is that for some reason we do well at the tournaments themselves. I suspect there is something around team spirit here but irrespective of the reason this seems accurate.

I think it has to do with the underdog mentality. When we're up against, we up our game, no question.

However, we have lacked the ruthlessness against teams at or below our level.

[jebus]

Are you intentionally missing the point?


Not missing the point at all. He's saying we have a good record in the World Cup, I say we've qualified for 2 out of 18 World Cup Finals, which isn't a good record. Both of you fail to understand that the qualification process is part of the World Cup, and so every time we don't qualify we have been eliminated at the first hurdle. This is all irrelevant to the fact that people who want this tournament expanded to give the regular good but not good enough teams a place is going to do so at the loss of the overall quality of the tournament. Can anyone say that the European Cup means as much now as it once did? Or that the World Cup group stages are of any interest whatsoever? Jesus most people complain about the amount of dud teams allowed into the World Cup finals and now people are advocating doing the same to the European Championship

[Maroon 7]

Not missing the point at all. He's saying we have a good record in the World Cup, I say we've qualified for 2 out of 18 World Cup Finals, which isn't a good record. Both of you fail to understand that the qualification process is part of the World Cup, and so every time we don't qualify we have been eliminated at the first hurdle. This is all irrelevant to the fact that people who want this tournament expanded to give the regular good but not good enough teams a place is going to do so at the loss of the overall quality of the tournament. Can anyone say that the European Cup means as much now as it once did? Or that the World Cup group stages are of any interest whatsoever? Jesus most people complain about the amount of dud teams allowed into the World Cup finals and now people are advocating doing the same to the European Championship

I think most people view the qualification process and the tournament itself as being separate despite the fact you have to do well in the former to even get invited to the latter.

As far as the tournaments themselves go I think it's fair to say we've done pretty well when we've managed to reach them. Which hasn't been very often sadly.

[mypost]

Getting to host it is a long shot to begin with and even if we got it it would only guarantee qualification for 1 tourny, the end result is that we will qualify for more Euro's if they expand it

:D

We couldn't host it with 16 teams, let alone 24. The idea is a non-starter. The best we can hope for, is a Euro final at Lansdowne, that's as much as we can manage.

As long as Rangers aren't involved.....:o

[jebus]

I think most people view the qualification process and the tournament itself as being separate despite the fact you have to do well in the former to even get invited to the latter.

What is about Galway fans and the word invite when talking about football? :p We qualify, we don't get invited, hence the World Cup qualifiers are as much a part of the World Cup as the Champions League prelim rounds and first stage

[geysir]

I think most people view the qualification process and the tournament itself as being separate despite the fact you have to do well in the former to even get invited to the latter.

As far as the tournaments themselves go I think it's fair to say we've done pretty well when we've managed to reach them. Which hasn't been very often sadly.
They are not separate, just at a different level.

My fear of us getting hammered in any of the finals is about 100 times greater than us doing okay.
So it has been a great relief that at our worst we have just been dead boring but never peed upon.

[RogerMilla]

You do realise the qualification process is part of the tournament too right?


is it really ? well do explain... :rolleyes:

[RogerMilla]

germany, portugal, austria and switzerland all had to dramatically renovate / re-build / build from scratch stadiums to host recent tournaments. SA are currently doing a lot of stadium building for wc 2010 and ukraine and poland likewise for the next euros. no one ever has the full compliment of stadiums prior to winning the right to host an international competition


germany renovated and use the stadia now even leipzig which is used for athletics , austria and switzerlands may have been improved upon but were definitely poor , portugal i have no idea

and as for south africa , poland and ukraine , vanity excercises...

[mypost]

germany, portugal, austria and switzerland all had to dramatically renovate / re-build / build from scratch stadiums to host recent tournaments. SA are currently doing a lot of stadium building for wc 2010 and ukraine and poland likewise for the next euros. no one ever has the full compliment of stadiums prior to winning the right to host an international competition

The difference been in those countries, when they say they'll build it, it gets built. Here, as the FAI and Rovers know, the time between idea and completion is roughly 10 years.

Even something like the Luas in Dublin, took 9 years to build two lines that don't connect. :rolleyes: The M50 took 35 years, and it's still not finished. That's before you consider the budget.

Look at the Germans. When they won the WC rights, only half the stadiums were ready. Now, they've got some of the finest stadia in the world. The Allianz in Munich was built in 3 years, from the first brick to the key handover, even with the freezing winter months. Despite the fact that both countries are supposed to be among the richest in the world.

[jbyrne]

germany renovated and use the stadia now even leipzig which is used for athletics , austria and switzerlands may have been improved upon but were definitely poor , portugal i have no idea

and as for south africa , poland and ukraine , vanity excercises...

germany spent as much renovating stadiums as new ones would cost to build. they also built about half from scratch. they still didnt have the stadiums in place when they won the right. no country ever has and thats the point i was making. IF (big if!) we ever won the rights to hold a tournament jointly we would have CP (provided the gaa allowed it be used and why wouldnt they given the money they would make), lansdowne and two other new 30,000 stadiums in cork and say galway would be viable for mixed use afterwards.

switzerland re-built basle, zurich, geneva and berne for the euros not just "improved" upon.

[RogerMilla]

germany spent as much renovating stadiums as new ones would cost to build. they also built about half from scratch. they still didnt have the stadiums in place when they won the right. no country ever has and thats the point i was making. IF (big if!) we ever won the rights to hold a tournament jointly we would have CP (provided the gaa allowed it be used and why wouldnt they given the money they would make), lansdowne and two other new 30,000 stadiums in cork and say galway would be viable for mixed use afterwards.

switzerland re-built basle, zurich, geneva and berne for the euros not just "improved" upon.


ok but my point is that they were not vanity excercises from the germans and swiss... ours would be.

lets forget about hosting it , and concentrate on making hay from the fact that we could conceivably qualify for every Euro going forward once ot becomes 24 teams...