I heard a rumour that UEFA wanted to increase the number of teams in the european championships to 24 from 16.
Has anyone heard anything?
Printable View
I heard a rumour that UEFA wanted to increase the number of teams in the european championships to 24 from 16.
Has anyone heard anything?
Yeah heard that a while ago. Stupid idea IMO.
See this discussion
http://foot.ie/showthread.php?t=48540
Now that we are an improving team we wont need it!
If we started qualifying for nearly every euro championship instead of one every twenty years:) would it still be a stupid idea. As an Irish fan, I'd be absolutely chuffed about this.Quote:
Originally Posted by DmanDmythDledge
I think that if this came in with so many teams involved, it could lead to triple bids, which would be supported by UEFA. That would never be feasible for a 16 team tournament.
Hmm.
Currently 53 members in Uefa (Welcome in Montenegro), possibly 54 by the European Championships in 2012 (is it yourself, Kosovo?).
Euro 2012 could have 24 teams. That means almost half of the membership of Uefa. How will qualifiers be organised.
Some Possibilities (in my opinion):
* A two leg knockout with a preliminary round of 12 featuring Andorra vs. Luxembourg etc. Just like it was back in the day when we nearly beat Spain in the 1960s.
*Six groups of 7 and two of 6, with the top three teams in each group qualiying. Too many teams going through in each group, leading to far too many demotivated games
*Six groups of 4 and six of 5, with the top two going through. Probably popular with the FAs as there will be few internationals dates required, but quality games for fans spread thin
*Four groups of twelve play each other once each, randomly picked home or away, top six in each go through, but cannnot play each other in the first round of the finals; meanwhile the remaining six, based on ranking to start, play each other twice during the same spell to decide which two get to take part in the Qualifiers proper - á la the Christy Ring Cup in hurling - in the month before the finals, the bottom ranked teams in each of the four groups play off to see who is relegated. Might actually give fans a few games worth seeing, and we wouldn't have to watch us play the same team four times in three years, and could possibly develop the confidence of the weaker nations between World Cup qualifiers.
*Michele Platini produces a large fedora, and handwritten scraps of paper are the names of the European nations outside FIFA's top twenty rankings and UEFA's top ten financial contributors are thrown into it. Michele then picks names out to join the aforementioned in the finals until the remaining slots are filled. Guaranteed to be popular in Geneva.
This does not even consider the consequent pain in the hole nature of trying to work out group qualifiers in the finals á la World Cups 1986 to 1994.
My thinking is that the 24 team European championship is a non-runner. It is a vote winner in election time, and that is about it. In South America, everyone is brought to the party, which is easily done as there are only ten - they invite teams to pad it out (Delaney, get on that one now - I like the idea of Ireland taking part in the South American Chamionships). I think in Europe, it really ought be cut down to an elite on merit and chance. After all, Yugoslavia alone is about to be seven different teams, there are about six of Luxembourg's size or smaller, damnit, there are two different ones representing this small island. By pure guessing, I think you could fit the land mass of about fourteen competing teams in the current championship into France. Remove Scandinavia, Turkey, the islands and the former Soviet Union, and everyone else will fit into Kazakhstan (source as above), which in turn is about a quarter the size of Canada. 16 teams is fine.
Not that I am dissing the chance of getting to the European Championships, mind - if I happens and it works for us, I'll gladly welcome it.
Well considering only 14 teams qualify, because of Austria and Switzerland. Really it should be a 24 team competition. I actually look forward to European Chapionships more than the World Cup, there tends to be better football in it. Having said that the worst match i have ever witnessed was in the second round of the last World Cup between two European teams, Ukraine and Switzerland
I'd advocate a 24 team tournament with 12 groups of 4/5. In terms of hosting should be rotated between Italy, Spain, Germany, Enlgand and France. In future maybe add Russia to that. It's not like the journey will be an issue for anyone and I hate joint hosting especially as it gives dross teams like Austria a free entry.
Actually, that is a another issue with a 24 team competiton - any potential hosts would realistically have to have about 12 decent stadia capable of holding in excess of 40,000. If anything it will lead to 3 and 4 country bids. And whatever about Austria getting a free in, the chances are that they are liable to get a handy draw and end up in the right group to go through.Quote:
Originally Posted by cavan_fan
Russia would have about 6 - 8 major stadia in and around the European part, so you might be having the possibility of going off to places like Perm and Novosibirsk, Volgograd and Yekaterinaberg: firstly the distances are way bigger than in Poland / Ukrainia, and secondly, you are still looking at going to Russia for it:eek:
24 teams is a non-runner anyway, but the logistics make it more so.
It could definitely work. There are about 6 countries that could hold it alone. Joint bids from countries like Belgium/Holland like in Euro 2000 would definitely work. If anything it will mean 3/4 team bids which will mean that there are 20-21 teams vying for qualification. 12 stadia is about right, but I would say about 3-4 of those would be capacity of 30-35,000 and not 40,000.
I would expect bids from the 4 Scandinavia countries, or Hungary, Slovakia and the Czechs etc.
Perhaps a four team bid from Ireland, Scotland, the North and Wales?
Scotland could provide about 6-8 stadia, Ireland without the GAA could provide 2 (Lansdowne Road and a bulked up Thomond Park),with the GAA add in Croker, Park Ui Chaoimhe and Thurles, Wales - probably 2-3 (Millenium, Cardiff's new ground and Swansea's new ground)and the north could supply a revamped Windsor Park.
Politics and money are the by-words in UEFA and you can never rule anything out. Both Ireland and Scotland have alot of friends in UEFA, and we would be highly supported by England, Germany, Holland and the Scandinavian countries. This might not happen for a good 20-30 years but I firmly believe it will happen eventually.
At the present moment, there will be about 5-6 very decent countries who will miss out on qualification for every euro championship. If these are countries like Ukraine, Russia, Poland and Turkey then UEFA loses out financially big time. That is why a 24 team tournament will happen.
sorry i dont get this bit why do uefa lose money if these countries dont get in ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bungle
Simple - Those coutries may not have the wealthiest populations but would have huge viewing figures, and the big money that UEFA gets would come chiefly from sponsorship. Secondly, there is the licensing agreements - if a major Turkish newspaper wants to have it's special Euro 2012 supplement, UEFA can legitimately charge more than a major Slovenian paper as it by default has a smaller potential readership. Similarly with all the other licensed merchandise, like Euro 2012 teddy bears (something Bungle knows all about;)) will have a larger market than Maltese ones. Finally, the traditionally bigger names (I'm thinking Russia, Poland and possibly Turkey more than Ukrania) will have people tuning in because of who they are than how good they are. All four also have a huge diaspora and that will influence TV stations (Setanta anyone?)Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerMilla
You may be only too sure that when Latvia qualified the last time around
Come on mateQuote:
Originally Posted by Bungle
Be real
:cool:
He's right - you must be talking about Jackman Park - Thomond is a rugby ground:eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Torn-Ado
I can hear John Motson now "Welcome to Jackman Park where David Beckham, OAP leads England out against Romania in the group decider."
I completely forgot that the GAA championships would be on during the summer..******!That's if they would have let us use their stadia anyway.
Well that probably puts paid to that dream!!
Bluebird summarised my argument perfectly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by carloz
do these two points not conflict?
more teams = lesser quality?
i must say though i am in favour but only from a selfish perspective
how would it work though? horrible 6 group/4 best 3rd places a la world cups? awkward.
i can see an ireland/wales/scotland/norn iron bid arising (maze, croker, windsor, lansdowne, millenium, ibrox, hampden, parkhead, murryfield, dundee, aberdeen, and somewhere else in wales). with 24 teams, i wouldn't see a problem with 4 country hosting.
[QUOTE=Bluebeard;700660]He's right - you must be talking about Jackman Park - Thomond is a rugby ground:eek:
Maybe I missed the joke here but why as a rugby ground could Thomond not be used for soccer?
As far as I know Thomond Park will be 26,500 all seater when it's completed. They should be able to bulk that up to at least 30,000.
Ireland:Lansdowne and Thomond
Wales:Millenium and Cardiff's new ground (plus Swansea's new ground potentially-but I don't know how much it will hold)
Northern Ireland:The Maze and a question mark over Windsor
From our three countries that gives at least five definite stadia with big question marks over Windsor and Swansea's new ground.
Scotland:Ibrox, Parkhead, Hampden and Murrayfield and one from either Easter Road or Heart's ground.
That gives five definites. I don't know what the capacity of Aberdeen or Dundee's grounds are.
Overall, give our take 10 definite stadia. Question marks over Aberdeen, Swansea, Dundee and Windsor. There are at least 6 potentially large top class stadia there (Ibrox, Parkhead, Murrayfield, Hampden, Millenium and the new Lansdowne) and three new stadia (Thomond, Cardiff and the Maze).
If the GAA let a few games be played in Pairc Ui Chaoimhe as a once off, then I really think it might happen. Forget about Croker because that's a no go.
I'm now going off to dream about Shay Brady - who recently joined Barcelona from Man U for £90 million lifting the European Championships for Ireland at a packed Ibrox......
FIFA have rules for minumu distance between stadiums to help with accomodation etc. Only one stadium per city. So take your pick from the Dublin, Edinburgh, Cardiff stadiums. Sorry to be the dampner here, but it ain't gonna happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bungle
And GAA granting the use during summer months? Good one!
I thought the whole point of hosting tournaments was to enable countries to stimulate the wholescale improvement of football stadium and facilities infastructure throughout the country, rather than 'brushing things under the carpet' by using other sports facilities.
Just wait, they'll try this and then some Scouser will come along and rob the hat. CHAOS.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluebeard
I am in favour of expanding the European Championships to 24 teams. There are more new football nations being formed all the time so realistically for both Wales and Ireland it's just going to get harder and harder to qualify. Take Montenegro for example-I reckon they'd give us a good game, and there is even talk of some of Spain's autonomous communities trying for status as a football nation. We beat the Basques 1-0 in a friendly a while back, but in my opinion those regions would be able to put out very capable teams.
And just for the record, the Liberty stadium holds 22,500, which is not enough to host a European Championships match as you need 30,000. However, this could be expanded.
They may as skip the qualification and make it a 56 team tournament if they are goign to expand to 24 teams. Euro 2004 was dire enough (escept watching Barthez save Beckham's penalty hee hee). Only the total rubbish wouldn't qualify with 24 teams. You add the likes of dIreland and Wales in their current states its going to add SFA to the tournament for anyone besides Wales and ourselves, we are not playing football at a level where we wouldl compete in the group stage of a tourament right now. I'd rather see us get stuff in order and earn our place at Euro 2008/12/16.
Quote:
Originally Posted by danonion
brian glanville - you should only be allowed to take part if you stand a reasonable chance of winning. fair 'nuff.
Bad argument. This ireland team is better than the Greek team which won itQuote:
Originally Posted by SuperDave
It certainly wasn't when we played you, and I doubt Greece's neighbours Cyprus would agree either. That Greek side was extremely well organised, something which Ireland are not. They also had a prolific centre-forward in Charisteas, again, something Ireland have not got.Quote:
Originally Posted by cavan_fan
As for the argument that the tournament standards would go down if you expanded to 24 teams-I disagree, given that at present there are always very tight contests over second and third places, sometimes with three or more teams involved.
If you say, expanded qualification to the top three in each group it wouldn't make it much less competitive than it is now.
16 Goals in 58 matches is not prolific!!
Fair enough, but during Euro 2004 he pretty much scored all their goals. It was the Greek team in that specific tournament that was being referred to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soper
They've done **** all since that though.
If it was expanded to 24 teams the standard wouldn't go down at all. As it stands there are a number of very decent teams that miss out on qualification, especially when one of the hosts is Austria.
As I said earlier teams like Russia, Ukraine, Poland, Turkey, Denmark, Bulgaria and even us are all teams that could potentially miss out on next summers event. None of these teams would drag the standard down too much!!