32 team knock out styleevery 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...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.
https://kesslereffect.bandcamp.com/album/kepler - New music. It's not that bad.
You'd be nearly as well off making it a 64 team tournament after qualifying (wink)
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 GAA
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.
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 !
Germany gonna be a tough out. What a beautiful goal....
Eh? Nothing remotely close.
You won't - read my post #246.
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).
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)
Last edited by EalingGreen; 16/06/2024 at 6:01 PM.
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.
Keane O'Shea Given Best Smallbone
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.
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?
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:
"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.
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..
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.
Keane O'Shea Given Best Smallbone
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)
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.
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?).
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 Ted
It's not what I "want", rather it's what's justifiable and in accordance with UEFA's rules and customary practice.
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!
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.
That's a relief:
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.
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.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks