UEFA Euro 2028

[seanfhear]

Sure there will be a United Ireland by 2028 anyway (Wink)

And maybe even a Queen MaryLou of Ireland.

[EalingGreen]

Why not lobby for a Windsor Park exception, on the points raised above? Or is UEFA more likely to make an exception for a proposed, non-existent GAA stadium with the required capacity, rather than an existing stadium with a below requirement capacity?

Your comparisons don't work.
Re Russia, Putin bought the tournament (literally), so when he said temporay seating to bring Ekaterinburg to 35k capacity was good enough for him, then it was good enough for FIFA, no argument.
Re. Portugal, there simply was no viable 9th location for a 30k stadium anywhere in the country, whereas Porto is a top footballing city, with two professional clubs, meaning the exception was made.
Whereas if Belfast/Windsor/Casement cannot meet the required criteria, then there are several extra English cities already with adequate stadia who could step up today, if necessary.

And specifically regarding Windsor, if there was any possibility of that being expanded to achieve even 25k capacity, don't you think the IFA would be pushing that, instead of throwing their lot in with Casement?

I can tell you now that it physically could not be done without demolishing and rebuilding at a minimum the Kop and South stands. And to replace the former would mean demolishing the Council's leisure centre next door and taking up/purchasing adjacent public land, which BCC would never countenance. While the latter would mean cmpulsorily purchasing the entire south side of Olympia Drive, which must have at least 50 houses on it.
And even if, by some (Putinesque) miracle those could be achieved, there is no way you could justify the £50m+ which that process would require.
And after all that, consider this from this morning:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-60865557

It’s not happening without State support. And what the FAI can offer as is is the Aviva. So anything beyond the given use of the Aviva is a plus for the FAI – even if the primary beneficiary of extended State support is a GAA structure. But from the State’s perspective, wanting beneficial spread beyond Dublin, an acknowledged need to do, is a push facilitator for an additional and non-Dublin venue.

I would be genuinely astonished if your government ever undertook to provide an adequate venue outside of Dublin.

I would urge you again to consider the hoops Cardiff had to jump through, with associated costs, to stage the 2018 Champions League Final:
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/...pions-12928557

And that was for one game, on one day, with two sets of supporters flying in, in a modern 73k stadium which was already pretty much UEFA compliant, and in a city which (no offence) is rather more "big-time" than either Cork or Galway, whilst also having much greater experience of staging international events in several different sports.

I don’t think Croke Park is a runner for reasons stated earlier.

If the only way Dublin can be a host city is if Croke is added to the AVIVA, then that is what will likely happen. This is because ROI has to stage games, and those are the only two stadia in the country which are remotely feasible.
But if the Dublin government (expense) and FAI (rivalry) can get away without including Croke, then they will.

But if the FA has conceded Belfast as a host venue, and this subsequently does not materialise (which is the most likely scenario), does this not open the door for the replacement use of an “non English” venue?

In theory, yes,, but it will not be in ROI or Wales, since neither of those has an alternative soccer stadium in a city other than Dublin or Cardiff.
It could conceivably be given to Scotland, since notwithstanding that Murrayfield is a rugby stadium, it could easily meet UEFA standards, while also being in a large, capital city with all the infrastructure, experience and resources that that entails.

But since this is effectively an "English" bid, I still think that that is where NI's slot will go. After all, if England were required to provide, say, 12 venues instead of 11, then they coiuld do that right now, and still have another half a dozen in reserve.
And never forget, it is Westminster who will be stumping up the vast bulk of the funding for this bid, so they/the FA will have the final say, with the other four associations basically taking whatever they're given.

This is another issue with Casement. Even if Casement is built in time for 2028, it will be a GAA stadium to GAA specifications. To meet EC requirements, an additional small fortune would need to be spent to bring a newly built stadium up to standard, no?

There are a million issues with Casement, which is why I'm very doubtful it will ever stage Euro2028 games.

But if NI is to be a host venue, that is the only hope. And IF (emphasise) it can be rebuilt in time, it at least has the benefit of being supported by all the key players:
The IFA - for abvious reasons;
The GAA - for financial reasons;
Stormont - for tourism/visitor/image reasons;
Westminster - to make it a proper "UK-wide" tournament;
UEFA - To spread the tournament to another member association beyond the usual big boys (Germany/Spain/Italy/France etc).

But the structure is there, and from a cost and time perspective, it seems a lot more viable bringing PuC up to scratch than a Casement Park that does not exist.

The sturcuture is NOT there (PuC), or anything like it.

For one thing, there is no way UEFA would countenance uncovered stands with temporary, bolted-on seating. And I strongly doubt that the existing foundations for the other 3 stands are strong enough to support the weight of a roof. meaning you'd have to knock them down and start again.

And all that's before you factor in the media/corporate/sponsors/VIP add-ons which UEFA routinely require.

Above all, if there were simply no other option, they might ease their requrements, but when England alone could stage the tournament tomorrow, with stadia to spare, that simply isnt the case.

[sidewayspasser]

Much of your argument against PuC seems to be based on the lack of roof cover. However, I don't think UEFA regulations require fully covered stands (if you can prove otherwise, I'm happy to be pointed out the bit of regulation that asks for it). Also, you seem to assume that only one stand has a roof, while two have. It's only the terraces at either end that don't.

[EalingGreen]

Much of your argument against PuC seems to be based on the lack of roof cover. However, I don't think UEFA regulations require fully covered stands (if you can prove otherwise, I'm happy to be pointed out the bit of regulation that asks for it). Also, you seem to assume that only one stand has a roof, while two have. It's only the terraces at either end that don't.

Here is an extract from UEFA's spec for Euro2024:

"The Stadium must be covered by a roof in order to protect all spectators from weather conditions such as rain, wind, sun, etc. Roof access is required for maintenance, rigging and signage purposes.
The roof structure should ideally not have a negative impact on the growth of healthy high-quality grass for the pitch. From a sustainability perspective, solar panels and rain water harvesting are encouraged."
See pdf page 66: https://www.uefa.com/multimediafiles...1_download.pdf

And as regards seating: "no provisional or temporary seating installations will be permitted" (Pdf page 66)

The whole document is 190 pages, with their stadium provisions starting at page 52. This goes into incredible detail, taking eg a random example from my brief scan:

Field of play orientation
Great care must be taken regarding the orientation of the field of play in relation to the sun and prevailing weather conditions. A north-south orientation of the field of play is considered ideal.
Provision must be made to accommodate the main television camera positions in the west stand (main stand) to avoid problems with the glare of the sun.
The orientation of the Stadium and field of play must not deviate by more than 15 ̊ from the north -south axis. (Pdf Page 60).

While I saw somewhere that control of the stadium has to be given over to UEFA for the entire period it's in use. Try getting that one past the GAA, at least without a whole shed full of money from someone!

[sidewayspasser]

Ok, I stand corrected.

[backstothewall]

Here is an extract from UEFA's spec for Euro2024:

"The Stadium must be covered by a roof in order to protect all spectators from weather conditions such as rain, wind, sun, etc. Roof access is required for maintenance, rigging and signage purposes.
The roof structure should ideally not have a negative impact on the growth of healthy high-quality grass for the pitch. From a sustainability perspective, solar panels and rain water harvesting are encouraged."
See pdf page 66: https://www.uefa.com/multimediafiles...1_download.pdf

And as regards seating: "no provisional or temporary seating installations will be permitted" (Pdf page 66)

The whole document is 190 pages, with their stadium provisions starting at page 52. This goes into incredible detail, taking eg a random example from my brief scan:

Field of play orientation
Great care must be taken regarding the orientation of the field of play in relation to the sun and prevailing weather conditions. A north-south orientation of the field of play is considered ideal.
Provision must be made to accommodate the main television camera positions in the west stand (main stand) to avoid problems with the glare of the sun.
The orientation of the Stadium and field of play must not deviate by more than 15 ̊ from the north -south axis. (Pdf Page 60).

While I saw somewhere that control of the stadium has to be given over to UEFA for the entire period it's in use. Try getting that one past the GAA, at least without a whole shed full of money from someone!

That's Croke Park out of the running. Without Hill 16 the capacity of Croke Park drops under 70,000, and it would look awful having a big empty terrace behind a goal.

[jbyrne]

always thought croke park would be twice the stadium it is if a roof was put on hill 16 end. would enclose it nicely

[seanfhear]

always thought croke park would be twice the stadium it is if a roof was put on hill 16 end. would enclose it nicely

A Total Retractable Roof ( for all of Croke Park ) would also be handy in Ireland.

[EalingGreen]

That's Croke Park out of the running. Without Hill 16 the capacity of Croke Park drops under 70,000, and it would look awful having a big empty terrace behind a goal.

The minimum capacity requirement is only 30k, so even with closing off Hill 16, Croke comfortably exceeds that.

As for the look of it, have you ever seen Braga's stadium, built for when Portugal hosted the Euro's?

It was built in a huge quarry (literally) and with only two stands, both along the touchline.

Meaning one end is a massive rock wall, while the other is a scrub-covered bank, over which you can just see the town in the distance:

[EalingGreen]

A Total Retractable Roof ( for all of Croke Park ) would also be handy in Ireland.

Retractable rooves were popular a few years back (eg Cardiff Millennium), but have since gone out of fashion - I suspect because the cost and engineering complexity isn't cost effective just to save the occasional game which cannot go ahead at all due to weather.

The exception is tennis, but they simply cannot play in the rain, while their stadia are much smaller anyhow.

[seanfhear]

Retractable rooves were popular a few years back (eg Cardiff Millennium), but have since gone out of fashion - I suspect because the cost and engineering complexity isn't cost effective just to save the occasional game which cannot go ahead at all due to weather.

The exception is tennis, but they simply cannot play in the rain, while their stadia are much smaller anyhow.

To be honest I was just trying to be helpful to the Irish Government by coming up with a way to help them waste Copious Amounts of Public Money. They basically never turn down an opportunity to waste Public Money so you can expect a huge roof over Croke Park and maybe even the Entire Country.

[ifk101]

But if NI is to be a host venue, that is the only hope.

If Casement gets built, it will be to the current standard of PuC but with a lower capacity and with a lower scale capable of accommodating corporate/ media obligations etc etc. Is it really viable to get Casement Park built in time, and then subsequently tear down one end of this completed stadium to rebuild it to UEFA stipulations (you are aware one end of the proposed Casement is terracing?) and as you say yourself

converting terracing is not a simple matter of bolting on a few seats.

It is far more viable for PuC to host the EC as an existing structure is in place. Casement first needs to be built, then one end needs to be knocked down and rebuilt again, (hopefully resulting in a 30,000 seat capacity?) and this needs to be done in six years and in an area where local residents say no.

[backstothewall]

Is it really viable to get Casement Park built

Park of making this happen is everyone accepting that the answer to this question is no. It's the wrong stadium in the wrong place for all the wrong reasons. It's a project that's going nowhere.

[Eirambler]

Lads, neither Casement or PuC is going to be used. Lansdowne will be, Croker might be. Unless the north can pull something amazing out of the fire that isn't Casement, that will be the extent of Irish involvement in terms of stadiums.

[EalingGreen]

If Casement gets built, it will be to the current standard of PuC but with a lower capacity and with a lower scale capable of accommodating corporate/ media obligations etc etc. Is it really viable to get Casement Park built in time, and then subsequently tear down one end of this completed stadium to rebuild it to UEFA stipulations

If Casement is to get built, it will only be if Stormont comes up with the funding for the overspend. And I strongly supect that will only happen if hosting Euro2028 can be used as justification, which would bring with it the bonus of support from the IFA. In those circumstances, it should be (just) capable of being built to meet UEFA standards.
(On this last point, he most recent GAA proposal shows that it will be completely covered, for example, unlike PuC.)

(you are aware one end of the proposed Casement is terracing?)

Even if the terracing is closed off, the remaining seated capacity should still be close to 30k. In which case, if all else complied (and NI qualified of course!), then I could see UEFA granting a one-off derogation. Remember, a couple of the stadia in Portugal were only 27k-28k.

It is far more viable for PuC to host the EC as an existing structure is in place.

I have already explained why I think PuC is unsuitable (UEFA specifications), unnecessary (numerous GB alternatives) and undesirable (no footballing legacy).

Casement first needs to be built, then one end needs to be knocked down and rebuilt again, (hopefully resulting in a 30,000 seat capacity?) and this needs to be done in six years and in an area where local residents say no.

I agree completely that there are so many hurdles to be overcome for Casement that even if it does get built, it must be long odds-against it ever being capable of hosting Euro2028 games.

However, my point was that if the Finals are to come to NI, then Casement could conceivably be made suitable - just - and so represents the sole hope for an Irish venue (other than Dublin), no matter how slim that hope may be.

That's all, really.

[EalingGreen]

It's the wrong stadium in the wrong place for all the wrong reasons. It's a project that's going nowhere.

I agree entirely. And those objections (wrong place especially) may mean it doesn't get built, or if it ever does, then on a much more modest scale.

But the fact is, there's at least £62m of public momey waiting to be spent by the GAA, who are determined that it's Casement or nothing.

Which it probably is, since it is totally unfeasible for them to bear the added cost of acquiring an alternative site in Belfast, while locating it anywhere else in NI is completely out of the question.

Which is all a bit like the old gag about the tourist to Ireland stopping to ask directions somewhere and being told: "If I were you, I wouldn't start from here".

Unfortunately, we have no other choice but to try to start from here (Casement).

[Eirambler]

A few more details coming through on this. Seems like the confirmation that UK/IE have "won" with their bid will be based on a 32 team tournament with 16 stadiums being used - 10 in England and 6 others.

That suggests that the non English stadiums will be Hampden Park, Murrayfield, the Millennium Stadium in Wales (or whatever they call it now), Lansdowne Road, Croke Park and a space for one in NI if they can come up with anything.

Interestingly Anfield cannot be part of the tournament as the pitch is too small to meet UEFA requirements, I think most people would have thought that was a certainty to be used.

[tetsujin1979]

What about any potential new stadium in Liverpool? You'd assume if that does go ahead, it'll be with hosting games in the tournament in mind

[seanfhear]

A few more details coming through on this. Seems like the confirmation that UK/IE have "won" with their bid will be based on a 32 team tournament with 16 stadiums being used - 10 in England and 6 others.

That suggests that the non English stadiums will be Hampden Park, Murrayfield, the Millennium Stadium in Wales (or whatever they call it now), Lansdowne Road, Croke Park and a space for one in NI if they can come up with anything.

Interestingly Anfield cannot be part of the tournament as the pitch is too small to meet UEFA requirements, I think most people would have thought that was a certainty to be used.

So,thats how Klopp get’s his pressing game to work in the home matches anyway.

As an aside ~ ~ I have always thought that any new pitches / stadiums developed should be required to be the maximum size ( the pitches ) to make for better football.

[NeverFeltBetter]

Meanwhile: https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/en...g-mass-3670356