France bid for 2016 European cup

**Neish** · 14/02/2009, 10:04 PM

http://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2009/0213/euro2016.html

It was also announced that the teams particpating tournament will increase from 16 to 24 for the 1st time in 2016.

Was just wondering how they will work the tournament with 24 teams. Will it be 6 groups of 4 with the winers of each group and two best 2nd placed teams going to quater finals. Or will they be some how introducing a last 16 round?

**pineapple stu** · 15/02/2009, 10:07 AM

The World Cup ran with 24 teams for a few years, including 90 and 94, when we were in it. Went to a round of 16 first.

**Mr Maroon** · 15/02/2009, 11:59 AM

Originally Posted by Neish

It was also announced that the particpating tournament will increase from 16 to 24 for the 1st time in 2016.

Where does it say that in the link?

**Neish** · 15/02/2009, 3:47 PM

Originally Posted by Mr Maroon

Where does it say that in the link?

It doesn't thats why I added it. Read it on ceefax

**Saint Tom** · 15/02/2009, 5:07 PM

i know that having 24 teams will mean we qualify more often but it will seriously take away from the quality of EC, which in my view is a better competition than the WC

**stojkovic** · 15/02/2009, 5:47 PM

Should be kept at 16 teams.

Its the best tournament by far.

When it was 24 teams in WC three draws put you through to nxt round.

**Dodge** · 15/02/2009, 5:50 PM

Originally Posted by Saint Tom

i know that having 24 teams will mean we qualify more often but it will seriously take away from the quality of EC, which in my view is a better competition than the WC

Agree completely tom. Also limits the types of country who can host it as they'll need more grounds

**pineapple stu** · 15/02/2009, 5:51 PM

Originally Posted by stojkovic

When it was 24 teams in WC three draws put you through to nxt round.

Three points for a win should make that a bit harder, hopefully. That only came in for the last 24-team WC.

It'd be interesting to see if the likes of Albania, Georgia, Lithuania, etc could sneak an appearance in the finals, but that's trying to find the positive. Agree 16 teams is about perfect.

**HarpoJoyce** · 17/02/2009, 6:00 PM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Three points for a win should make that a bit harder, hopefully. That only came in for the last 24-team WC.

It'd be interesting to see if the likes of Albania, Georgia, Lithuania, etc could sneak an appearance in the finals, but that's trying to find the positive. Agree 16 teams is about perfect.

No, three points for a win has been around for a while.

1994 World Cup
http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/archive...lts/index.html

1998 World Cup
http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/archive...lts/index.html

And as stojkovic expressed three draws puts a team through, it benefited Chile in Group B.

Group
Italy 3 2 1 0 7 3 7
Chile 3 0 3 0 4 4 3
Austria 3 0 2 1 3 4 2
Cameroon 3 0 2 1 2 5 2

**osarusan** · 17/02/2009, 7:17 PM

Originally Posted by HarpoJoyce

No, three points for a win has been around for a while.

But Pineapple Stu's point is that the combination of 24 teams and 3 points for a win happened only once - 1994. In 1990 it was 2 points for a win, and in 1998, it had expanded to 32 teams

Originally Posted by HarpoJoyce

And as stojkovic expressed three draws puts a team through, it benefited Chile in Group B.

Group
Italy 3 2 1 0 7 3 7
Chile 3 0 3 0 4 4 3
Austria 3 0 2 1 3 4 2
Cameroon 3 0 2 1 2 5 2

A 24-team competition in which 6 groups of 4 teams turns into a last 16 needs 6 group winners, 6 runners-up, and 4 best-3rd-placed-teams. 3 draws can put you through, but not always.

Look at our group in Italia 90 - if Egypt had scored an equaliser against England, instead of losing 1-0, then every team would have had an identical record. One team would have been eliminated by the toss of a coin (which was how Ireland finished above the Dutch).

Team Pld W D L GF GA GD Pts
England 3 1 2 0 2 1 +1 4
Ireland 3 0 3 0 2 2 0 3
Dutch 3 0 3 0 2 2 0 3
Egypt 3 0 2 1 1 2 -1 2

Our group from 1994 shows not even a win and a draw is always enough to qualify. Poor Norway.

Team Pld W D L GF GA GD Pts
Mexico 3 1 1 1 3 3 0 4
Ireland 3 1 1 1 2 2 0 4
Italy 3 1 1 1 2 2 0 4
Norway 3 1 1 1 1 1 0 4

EDIT : Anyhow, I hope that any expansion of the EC doesn't affect the quality of the football in the competition, although I fear it will.

**Sheridan** · 17/02/2009, 7:28 PM

Originally Posted by HarpoJoyce

And as stojkovic expressed three draws puts a team through, it benefited Chile in Group B.

Group
Italy 3 2 1 0 7 3 7
Chile 3 0 3 0 4 4 3
Austria 3 0 2 1 3 4 2
Cameroon 3 0 2 1 2 5 2

Eh? Chile would have gone through under the 16- or 32-team system anyway as runners-up.

**Pike B** · 17/02/2009, 7:52 PM

Euros are brilliant and I am glad they are expanding it.

**Bluebeard** · 17/02/2009, 9:33 PM

The Euros make the World Cup look like the Schmorld Schmup. I hate that they are going to make it a 24 team tourney and I really do not think it can work any way profitably to football. More football, even if of good quality, will take the event out of it. I am already worried that there is too much footy on telly.

The only way that this might ensure any quality (this is tenuously grasping at incredibly optimistic straws that I do not believe in anyway) is to have either 8 groups of three, the winner of each goes through to a quarter final (a variation on the WC second round in 1978 and 1982), or four groups of six (five games for each team in each group

), the top team going into semis (such a bad idea).

The best idea would be that the twelve weakest qualifiers / least likely to avoid civil strife / most unarousing women fans are all put together into a very big house, and each week they are expected to sing a song from a musical while ice-skating in a pig. This is all televised, and each week, the viewers vote - eurovision style - for the team that they most want to get rid of. The lowest team each weak is simply booted out of the finals until two of the ten remain - they go through, returning it to the size that God himself, and his younger brother Allah, wants - SIXTEEN. It should ensure a bit more entertaining football, and several people with no interest in football will tune in to the finals having voted for them in the preliminary semis. It's a win win scenario.

Tell Mr. Platini I'm ready to pass on my bank details for the inevitable huge paycheck for the simple solution for the awkward quandry.

**Pike B** · 17/02/2009, 9:36 PM

Originally Posted by Bluebeard

The Euros make the World Cup look like the Schmorld Schmup. I hate that they are going to make it a 24 team tourney and I really do not think it can work any way profitably to football. More football, even if of good quality, will take the event out of it. I am already worried that there is too much footy on telly.

The only way that this might ensure any quality (this is tenuously grasping at incredibly optimistic straws that I do not believe in anyway) is to have either 8 groups of three, the winner of each goes through to a quarter final (a variation on the WC second round in 1978 and 1982), or four groups of six (five games for each team in each group

), the top team going into semis (such a bad idea).

The best idea would be that the twelve weakest qualifiers / least likely to avoid civil strife / most unarousing women fans are all put together into a very big house, and each week they are expected to sing a song from a musical while ice-skating in a pig. This is all televised, and each week, the viewers vote - eurovision style - for the team that they most want to get rid of. The lowest team each weak is simply booted out of the finals until two of the ten remain - they go through, returning it to the size that God himself, and his younger brother Allah, wants - SIXTEEN. It should ensure a bit more entertaining football, and several people with no interest in football will tune in to the finals having voted for them in the preliminary semis. It's a win win scenario.

Tell Mr. Platini I'm ready to pass on my bank details for the inevitable huge paycheck for the simple solution for the awkward quandry.

I still like it..

**HarpoJoyce** · 18/02/2009, 1:55 PM

Originally Posted by osarusan

But Pineapple Stu's point is that the combination of 24 teams and 3 points for a win happened only once - 1994. In 1990 it was 2 points for a win, and in 1998, it had expanded to 32 teams

A 24-team competition in which 6 groups of 4 teams turns into a last 16 needs 6 group winners, 6 runners-up, and 4 best-3rd-placed-teams. 3 draws can put you through, but not always.

Look at our group in Italia 90 - if Egypt had scored an equaliser against England, instead of losing 1-0, then every team would have had an identical record. One team would have been eliminated by the toss of a coin (which was how Ireland finished above the Dutch).

Our group from 1994 shows not even a win and a draw is always enough to qualify. Poor Norway.......

pineapple stu's expressed the hope that it would be harder to qualify from a group with 3 draws when there was three points for a win.
The fact that Chile did it when you say that senario only happened in 1994 shows it would be a significant number of times if played regularly.

Of course, the competitiveness of the Rep. of Ireland - Nederland game would have changed if Egypt equalised. Both matches were not mutual exclusive.

That 'Italy' group in '94 was another strong agrument that there are too many UEFA countries in the World Cup. Getting rid of two or three of the European countries from that group would have improved the tournament.
Based on that group and more recent WCs I would be pessimistic about any improved quality in an expanded Euro tournament.

**pineapple stu** · 18/02/2009, 1:57 PM

No I didn't. Please stop putting words into my mouth.

The problem was raised about a 24-team competition that it makes it easier for teams to draw all three games and get through (as four of the best third placed teams go through). I noted that with three points for a win, if you draw all three games, you have less chance of going through as a best loser as, for example, a team with a win, a draw and minus goal difference now comes ahead of you.

That 'Italy' group in '94 was another strong agrument that there are too many UEFA countries in the World Cup. Getting rid of two or three of the European countries from that group would have improved the tournament.

How does that possibly make any sense?

**HarpoJoyce** · 18/02/2009, 2:22 PM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

No I didn't. Please stop putting words into my mouth.

The problem was raised about a 24-team competition that it makes it easier for teams to draw all three games and get through (as four of the best third placed teams go through). I noted that with three points for a win, if you draw all three games, you have less chance of going through as a best loser as, for example, a team with a win, a draw and minus goal difference now comes ahead of you.

The first time third place was mentioned was in reply to my post, it was not raised before this.
To repeat, you expressed the hope that it would be harder to qualify from a group with 3 draws when there was three points for a win.

So I put no words in your mouth.
If you wish to change your position on a football matter you are welcome to.
But do it quietly without bringing grief to everybody else.

I remember: Wasn't Rep.of Ireland or Nederland drawn from a draw drum after the 1990 group match to decide who their 1/16 opponents would be. As opposed to a 'coin-toss'.

[terms not use in the text above 'Cue', 'Pram' or 'Sepp Blatter'.]

**pineapple stu** · 18/02/2009, 2:33 PM

Originally Posted by HarpoJoyce

The first time third place was mentioned was in reply to my post, it was not raised before this.

Things don't have to be written in writing to be mentioned. Things can be implied. My post was clearly about that issue, as osarusan picked up. If you can't pick things up from posts, that's your problem - or maybe a clique's - but not mine.

I see you've chosen to ignore the challenge to your nonsensical comment about reducing the number of UEFA teams in the World Cup too. How convenient.

**Dodge** · 18/02/2009, 2:37 PM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Things don't have to be written in writing to be mentioned

quailty

**pineapple stu** · 18/02/2009, 2:42 PM

Just to annoy Harpo really. I know how anal he can get. I think his head explodes everytime someone doesn't outline precisely what they mean, citing links and words not used.

It was clear I was talking about the best third placed teams in my post, even though I didn't make the direct correlation.