Euros to expand to 24 teams in 2016

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cfdh_edmundo

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cfdh_edmundo

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 ;)

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_w...s/Austria.html

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'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cfdh_edmundo

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cfdh_edmundo

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cfdh_edmundo

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cfdh_edmundo

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...

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 ;)

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..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ifk101

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?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ifk101

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ifk101

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ifk101

But yes it's not going to happen ;)

---

With you on that one! :)

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jebus

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EalingGreen

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EalingGreen

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/...h&d=2008-01-11

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EalingGreen

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? ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EalingGreen

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EalingGreen

With you on that one! :)

---

Of course you are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morbo

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!

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. 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.

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?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EalingGreen

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RogerMilla

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