They'll move the Belfast games to England or Scotland more likely. What the FAI should be making clear is NI shouldn't be guaranteed one of the automatic spots if they're unable to host games. Should only get one if there's a spare one going.
Printable View
They'll move the Belfast games to England or Scotland more likely. What the FAI should be making clear is NI shouldn't be guaranteed one of the automatic spots if they're unable to host games. Should only get one if there's a spare one going.
Well that too, but it's supposed to be a British and Irish tournament. There are currently 11 matches (out of 51) scheduled to be played in Ireland so you can justify it as a tournament that is being genuinely hosted across the two islands. Any reduction of that shouldn't be accepted by the government, if Belfast can't host the games they need to be moved to Dublin and not to Britain.
They're not going to allow two stadia in Dublin used though.
Technically it's a UK and Ireland bid. So they'll be moving it from one part of the UK to another. Think any of the GAA will be ****e for matches and as Nigel said their not gonna use two stadiums in Dublin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eirambler
Don't know if it's possible for them to use one stadium for two groups or not but then it's the logistics of having fans of 8 teams in one city. Unless they fancy giving match going fans free travel like the other night. Might allow them stay in other parts of Ireland and travel in but it's gonna be less hassle to use Edinburgh or some other English city that wasn't picked.
They wouldn't have had Croker on the initial shortlist if two stadiums in Dublin was out of the question. Most people attending from outside Ireland will just fly in and out anyway with a one or maybe two night stay. A good chunk of attendees will be Irish residents who will day trip. Would just be a question of sensible scheduling. The government absolutely needs to be putting it's hand up for these games now that it's obvious Casement isn't happening.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eirambler
Re. 'Eirambler', sorry but technically it is not a "British and Irish tournament", it is a five Association tournament. And if one Association is unable to host a Group, then one of the other four will be selected to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by JR89
On which point, in reality, this is an English (FA) bid, since not only are they providing the bulk of the hosting as it is, but they could host the whole thing tomorrow on their own. (None of the other four could do so individually, nor even collectively, without The FA.)
Furthermore, the only reason The FA roped in the other four was due to the politics (small "p") of UEFA, where England are disliked/feared somewhat by the rest, and so needed the four extra Association votes, plus their lobbying etc. (Also helped by the fact that all future tournaments will have to be shared, unless they franchise it out to Saudi Arabia!)
Impossible technically (UEFA Rules) and practically, complete non-starter.Quote:
Originally Posted by JR89
As for the suggestion of bringing in Croke Park, to allow Dublin to host two groups, that too is contrary to UEFA rules, procedure and precedent. And never mind that Glasgow, with 3 x 50k football stadia of their own and a considerably greater footballing heritage than Dublin would be up in arms, there's also London to consider.
For that city isn't being permitted to host two Groups, just the one at Tottenham, with Wembley only being used for knockout games up to the Final. And that for a city with twice the population of ROI alone; 3 x PL stadia of 60k capacity, plus 90k Wenbley and 80k Twickenham*; five international airports and a direct rail link to continental Europe; many more European expatriates living in the city; plus x10(?) the number of hotel rooms in Dublin.
Meanwhile, England still has a number of other large cities with perfectly adequate, bespoke football stadia which aren't being used, reflecting that no other country in the world has nearly so broad and deep a footballing culture and heritage as England - even if the NT itself is usually pretty crap! Assuming Casement doesn't make the cut (increasingly likely I'd say), the IFA Group
will be relocated to somewhere in England, which is exactly as it should be (imo).
* - I mention Twickenham, since UEFA allocates the Euro's to hosts, and hosting cities, in order to provide a legacy to the game in the selected countries - new/updated stadia, government investment, infrastructure etc. Naturally this means favouring football stadia wherever possible, rather than those of other sports like Rugby or GAA.
GAA President isn't hopeful Casement will be ready: https://www.rte.ie/sport/football/20...for-euro-2028/
Interesting framing in that article:It doesn't say on what basis it "may" be revisited. Probably just the author's opinion.Quote:
The Aviva Stadium would be the only Irish stadium as part of Euro 2028, unless Croke Park replaces it.
That venue, as well as the Stadium of Light in Sunderland, West Ham's London Stadium and Old Trafford in Manchester were part of the initial proposals that didn't make the final cut.
That decision may now be revisited.
Ita difficult to believe there is no other suitable stadium in the north.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeverFeltBetter
If we get allocated other one. I think it should be outside of Dublin if possible. Cork would be ideal if the use of the GAA stadium is a runner
Time to redirect that Irish Government €50m towards tidying up Croker as an alternative venue for the games. Justify it as part of the "shared Ireland fund" by saying we're doing our bit to spare the north's blushes by keeping the games on the island to mitigate their inability to build a decent capacity stadium.
Can we nominate a stadium/city that wasn't in the original bid?Quote:
Originally Posted by Diggs246
(I don't see us getting a second ground out of it though)
The FAI are not gonna get the IFAs games. PUC wasn't even up to standard for the RWC I believe so what makes some think it's a viable option for UEFA. UEFA probably have no issues with Croker since even without the terrace you've still got 60K seats I believe. If Casement can't be used those games are going nowhere but back to England.
I'd suspect Sunderland would get the nod if it came to it. They wouldn't give London (West Ham) a third host stadium surely, and Old Trafford is getting a lot of criticism recently for being rundown.
Surely in this instance it's only fair for the residents of the north that those games should be relocated to the originally shortlisted stadium that's most easily accessible to residents of that area. That stadium of course is Croke Park. That should supersede any concerns over having a second stadium in Dublin. Particularly if the alternative was somewhere like Sunderland, where the stadium is only 12 miles from St James Park in Newcastle.
Why on earth were both Lansdowne and Croker both on the shortlist if they couldn't both host? It just doesn't make any sense
Nothing makes sense. It’s all a charade. Casement is being built to GAA specifications. Even if its built in time, it would need an immediate overhaul to host games. Basically its being built to where PuC currently is.
The plan was to build it to UEFA specs first, then change it to GAA spec (including replacing a lot of seating with terracing).
Not sure it will ever get done now, and certainly not to the standards of international sports organisations if it does go ahead.
I think when the original list was drafted they were still looking at a 32 team Euros. Which would have required multiple stadiums in some cities. However the point still stands, if they were potentially going to be OK with it for a 32 team Euros there shouldn't be any reason why they can't accept it now to ensure the games are kept in Ireland.Quote:
Originally Posted by elatedscum
That was/ is a "suggestion" and not included in the actual planning application for the stadium? Possibly could mean a redraw and a new planning application which would add an extra lump on top of an already excessive cost.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eirambler
i do think either a 16 or 32 team euros would be far better. this 24 team point, where only 8 teams are knocked out is pretty stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eirambler
same with the world cup and it's 40 team plans with 48 teams, initially 16 groups of 3 (where 2 teams qualify), now 12 groups of 4, with 8 3rd place teams going through... just go 32 or 64 teams...
A 32 team Euros seems a bit excessive though, doesn't it?
I'm sure it'll happen at some stage though, plus a 64-team World Cup. Money talks after all...
32 team knock out style :) every game is a final!
To a certain extent yeah, I'd also be happy with the 16 teams. I just think 24 is a terrible middle point, which eliminates a lot of the entertainment from the group stages, because almost everyone progresses, so the majority of games are relatively low stakes, unless you're right on the cusp of being either a good or bad third place team. There's so little jeopardy, you win your first game and you're basically through...Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Like a 32 team euros is basically like having our current 24 teams + Wales, Bosnia, Iceland, Norway, Ireland, Montenegro, Sweden and Greece. It's not great, but it's not like a huge drop in quality to the current teams outside the top 8 teams, who are very much in a league of their own... And the format improves much much more... You see it in the world cup, thinking of Germany getting knocked out in a group with Mexico, South Korea and Sweden - the dynamics of 2/4 getting out a group causes far more upsets than 2.5/4
53 teams competing in qualifying for 32 team championships would be nonsense. 16 teams was the perfect number for Euros.
You'd be nearly as well off making it a 64 team tournament after qualifying (wink)Quote:
Originally Posted by nigel-harps1954
I've no idea. Someone will have to get an extra stadium. They might be more comfortable with wales or Scotland as their stadia are under the SFA and the WFA. Not the GAAQuote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
The only football stadiums in Wales or Scotland that have the capacity to host matches are already based in cities that are being used. So technically they'll have to deal with the SRU not SFA or WFA as Murrayfield would be the most likely stadium they'd use.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diggs246
All a bit moot anyway as doubt they'll go anywhere but another English stadium. Could look for somewhere like Leeds, Leicester, Sunderland, or Southampton
I see they are asking the Brits to get stoned and not drunk
https://www.barstoolsports.com/blog/...n-championship
The Brits will get stoned and drunk ~ So, this will be an interesting experiment !Quote:
Originally Posted by Crosby87
Germany gonna be a tough out. What a beautiful goal....
Eh? Nothing remotely close.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diggs246
You won't - read my post #246.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diggs246
UEFA simply does not permit two stadia in one city - not even London, a city which could damned nearly host the whole tournament on its own. (Wembley for the Final etc is an exception).Quote:
Originally Posted by Diggs246
Which is why Dublin is out i.e. it could only ever be Aviva or Croke, and since the Aviva is 50% football, that will be it. (There is no other stadium in ROI which comes close to complying)
Wales has one stadium which meets the criteria (Principality) and another which might, Cardiff City Stadium (unsure?), but both are in the same city, so that's a no/no.
Scotland conceivably might do it if you included Murrayfield, except that it probably doesn't meet UEFA requirements, which are about much more than mere capacity, as well as being a rugby stadium, and why would UEFA or the SFA want to benefit a rival sport?
Which, assuming Casement doesn't make it (increasingly likely imo), leaves England. My guess is Sunderland/SoL, though if Nottingham Forest could redevelop The City Ground in time for the final decision (odds-against, I'd say), they might be in the running. Or as 'JR89' says, Leeds or Soton might step up. (Leicester City probably aren't in the running since the city doesn't have its own international airport, what with East Midlands being closer to Derby or Nottingham)
It looks like they're just going to spread the games around the existing stadiums, including one additional game in Dublin. The next question is what happens to the north in terms of qualification. If they're no longer hosting games can they justify continuing to be eligible for the two host qualification places that are being made available to host nations that don't qualify automatically? Seems a stretch to justify to be honest, they'll probably host a few training camps, but that's not the same as being a tournament host.
Would mean (assuming England will definitely qualify automatically) that it's two places between Ireland, Scotland and Wales and if any of the three qualify by themselves then all three would get automatic qualification. If the north drop out there's also a potential argument that Ireland should just get an automatic place from the start to ensure there is at least one Irish team involved in the tournament. However, the association is so all over the place at the moment that it's hard to see them having enough about them to successfully make the case for it.
Agree with everything you said. Only thing would be the last bit. Scotland and Wales are part of Britain, but separate football associations. The bid needed all five to pull together to garner as much support. England could easily have gone alone, but they knew the others would pull it over the line.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eirambler
Regarding Northern Ireland, it's hard to see how they can get such favoritism regarding slots, but the IFA should be looking to get huge investment for grassroots and stadia etc. Maybe, they give them some advantage in qualifying like a guaranteed play off. It seems like that issue could get messy. The IFA could derail it - being honest if I was them I'd be demanding as anything because they have the other four by the short and curlies.
Have you seen something which indicates this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eirambler
For I think it a logistical impossibility. For one thing, it would mean one set of four teams having to move around and play their Group/last 16 games in different venues and away from their base. More to the point, fans of those teams, who for the likes of Germany or the Dutch etc could number in 10's of thousands, would be forced to move around all over the place, where they might come up against large numbers of fans from the resident teams. Local police and security will not want this extra headache, plus transport companies (flights, trains, airports, stations etc) would have an extra burden over and above what they already have to deal with.
Instead it would be so much easier just to pick a new stadium/city to replace Belfast - England has plenty more which could host the tournament at very short notice.
Unless something changes, this joint bid will only be awarded two guaranteed places:Quote:
Originally Posted by Eirambler
"In order to ensure compatibility with the competition’s sporting and commercial format, the automatic qualification of the host team(s) shall be guaranteed only for a single host or a maximum of two joint host associations, as always implemented in the past."
https://www.uefa.com/news-media/news...03226503-1000/
As for hosting training camps etc, I don't think UEFA actually allocates these, it's up to the individual qualifiers to select their own. On which point I don't think NI/Belfast has anything esp suitable just now. My own hope would be that assuming NI isn't hosting a Group, the IFA could squeeze Westminster to fund a National Training Centre instead as our tournament "legacy", maybe with accommodation. This could be used by at least one of the teams playing in Dublin. Indeed with Belfast having two airports and only being a v.short flight from L'pool, Manchester, Glasgow etc, it might appeal to other teams as well?
One will be England and my guess is that for political reasons (both small and big "p"), the other will be ROI. However, they could conceivably contrive something like awarding the second (even a third?) automatic place on some new criterion, such as eg the highest UEFA Ranking in the two years leading up to the tournament; or performances in the prior Nations League games; or even qualification for WC2026?
The fact that the AVIVA was awarded the Europa League Final should stand to them, though I think I read that some of the facilities/amenities were barely up to the palatial standards which UEFA's bigwigs normally expect eg Media and Catering? Though I woulod expect the FAI to use that as an excuse to wring some more money from the Dublin government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eirambler
P.S. Why do you go to the trouble of typing out "the north" and "Ireland"? "NI" and "ROI" is correct, unmistakeable and quicker.
Would it be fair to say you don't want Ireland the republic of..Quote:
Originally Posted by EalingGreen
To get a 2nd stadium? Why, I mean are we that awful!!
It does appear that if we had a GAA stadium ready to roll with seating and specifications sorted, you would still would prefer Leicester or stoke or Southhampton to get it.
We are actually quite good hosts.
Also we can accommodate 1 million etc people over St Patricks weekend. So it's not like the fans will be homeless
The report regarding spreading the games around existing stadiums is this one from the Times (mods: feel free to delete the link if not OK to use the archive site):
https://archive.ph/vA2bB
As for my naming of the teams, that's just what I call them, both verbally and written. The Ireland team to me represents the whole island, north and south, as evidenced by players whose origins are from right across the island who play in it. So I call it Ireland. Whereas the NI team, as per your preferred name, only represents the north, so I call it the north. Just personal preference really.
NI are also part of "Britain" (more accurately the UK) and are seen as such by UEFA and FIFA, rather than being linked with ROI/FAI. (And I say that not to make any political point, merely to recognise the actual situation see eg https://www.theifab.com/organisation/, or page 4 of https://www.icsspe.org/system/files/FIFA%20Statutes.pdf)Quote:
Originally Posted by Bungle
NI deserve no "favouritism" over qualification or anything else, at least any more than Scot/Wales/ROI, and esp if they provide no stadium. Agree about the IFA using it to garner investment in football generally, esp when Westminster and Dublin will likely be pouring money into the others.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bungle
Couldn't disagree more i.e. the IFA have zero leverage. Why they can't even muster much support at local level, seeing as Sinn Fein are pretty hostile to "soccer", at least in any Northern Ireland context, while the DUP have never actually been very supportive of the game either (maybe something about permitting games on Sundays?).Quote:
Originally Posted by Bungle
Fact is, once the vote was taken to award the tournament to the five Associations, that was the end of any real influence the IFA was ever likely to have.
The idea anyone could take offence at Irish fans on an Irish football forum referring to the team as Ireland is a bit mental TedQuote:
Originally Posted by Eirambler
It's not what I "want", rather it's what's justifiable and in accordance with UEFA's rules and customary practice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diggs246
And before you imagine some sort of political bias (big "p") against ROI etc, I would love ("want") for the IFA/NI to get a big share of the sweeties etc, but recognise that we simply do not deserve it. For be clear, this is really England's bid, they are quite capable of hosting the entire tournament on their own and should have been eligible to do so, only the politics (small "p") of UEFA wouldn't permit it, meaning they roped in the other four. (Note that even combined, those other four would not be capable of hosting the Finals between them).
While besides the AVIVA, the only other stadium in ROI capable of hosting games is Croke, and why should UEFA (or the FAI for that matter) benefit a competing sport? I mean, there was no question eg of the SFA nominating Murrayfield, was there?
And that's before you accept that UEFA simply does not permit one city to host two groups. Look eg at London - over 5 x times the population of Dublin; 7 x PL teams and the same number of suitable stadia etc; 5 x international airports and Eurostar; the most advanced suburban transport system in the world outside Tokyo; and many times more hotel rooms etc.
Yet when it came to it, the "home of football" was allocated just the one host place, Spurs' ultra-modern, purpose-built £1bn super stadium. (Wembley was added solely for the Semi-Finals and Final, with England not even being permitted to stage their opening group game there to open the tournament)
I don't give a stuff either way about GAA games - I mean, what have they ever done for Football, they're our direct competitors for goodness sake!Quote:
Originally Posted by Diggs246
No doubt. But quite aside from the fact that eg Cardiff or Edinburgh could easily make similar claims, you don't seem to appreciate that in reality, this is the FA's bid - the other four Associations should appreciate that it is onlt England's bid which has got them an invitation to the party, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diggs246
That's a relief:Quote:
Originally Posted by Diggs246
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cp...1fedc.jpg.webp
I fully accept Northern Ireland are a separate team and viewed as such by UEFA. I was merely wording it in the context of us getting an automatic place over Wales and Scotland as we are not part of the UK in the event Northern Ireland aren't part of the bid. Yes, I'd love it, but the Scots and Welsh would understandably be pretty ****ed off, given that they are equal partners in the tournament. England are deserving of automatic qualification, but they recognised that they had to cede this to get it over the line with the help of the other 3 (4?). We can't really demand that, over the other 3 or 4 associations.Quote:
Originally Posted by EalingGreen
The IFA should go hell for leather to get something significant here. If I was them, I'd be trying to barter for a bit of extra leverage (guaranteed play off etc) given that it was a joint British/Irish bid. They literally have nothing to lose here. Uefa are likely to tell them to go f themselves, but the other four associations may have to concede something.
I don't know a huge amount about Northern Irish politics, but if the most working class areas such as the Falls Road or Shankhill Road suddenly got a legacy of grassroots football facilities the envy of any country and a commitment to investment in underage coaching, that legacy you would think would be supported by all parties. Certainly, they wouldn't be hostile to it I would think.