Will have to postpone my international retirement now. Crap!
In all honesty it's just another money-making scheme that doesn't take traditional tournament supporters into account all in the aid of desperately trying to paper over the huge crack that they couldn't attract enough interest to bankroll the event. Can't wait to see the list of host cities.
This sort of makes sense, as the expense to a single host is huge. So you get countries to apply to host groups, then to host quarters, semis and the final.
So if there are 24 teams, then that's 6 groups, you have each group in a different country (so at this stage no more travelling than usual). The quarters are arranged such that they are in a country neighbouring (or at least close) to the countries the two quarter finalist played their group games in. Similarly, the semi finals would be in close by countries. This keeps the total travelling to something sensible.
As an example. Group A is in England, Group B is in Germany, quarter between winner group A, runner up group B is played in Holland Group C is in Spain, Group D in Portugal, corresponding quarter is in France. Semi between the two winners is played in Belgium.
I'm sure you could work it out such that, apart from the final, all the travelling is mostly just border hoping, where cheap flights or trains are less then £100 return. Compare that to hosting the whole thing in England, where the return train fare from London to Manchester is more than that.
Makes sense to me. Clubs routinely fly around Europe in the middle of the season. Most countries lack the infrastructure and number of stadiums to deal with the expanded tournament, so it allows a few other countries to get involved. Obviously everyone will hate it. Supporters don't like chage. If it were down to football fans/media we'd still be playing with a brick of a ball, square posts and no nets. Who can forget the glorious fuss when the backpass rule came in? It was going to ruin football and we'd see defenders crawling around so they could "head" the ball back to keepers. It's worked out OK.
I'm sure you could work it out such that, apart from the final, all the travelling is mostly just border hoping, where cheap flights or trains are less then £100 return. Compare that to hosting the whole thing in England, where the return train fare from London to Manchester is more than that.
Two fatal flaws with this:
1) It would be entirely feasible to work it out by distance, but I doubt UEFA will bother
2) It will scupper literally hundreds of "cheap" flights during the tournament, including those that normal business travellers or holidaymakers would be looking to take. The likes of Easyjet and Ryanair will have their tongues wagging even now. For years, football travellers have been getting ripped off with massively inflated prices deliberately charged around sporting events such as summer tournaments, now, without being confined to one country it will make everyone suffer.
A good money saving idea in a time of austerity. Provided 'Europe' does not include Kazakstan and Siberia. One thought: Who will qualify as host nation ?
A good money saving idea in a time of austerity. Provided 'Europe' does not include Kazakstan and Siberia. One thought: Who will qualify as host nation ?
A good money saving idea in a time of austerity. Provided 'Europe' does not include Kazakstan and Siberia. One thought: Who will qualify as host nation ?
Nobody.
Good, that means that every team in the tournament will be there on merit.
Why dont they go the whole hog and group the teams according to location? So Spain, Portugal, Italy and France in one group; us, norway, rep of ireland and denmark in another; sweden, russia, poland and finland together; holland, belgium, germany and Switzerland; turkey, serbia, ukraine and greece; and finally slovenia, croatia, slovakia and czeh republic.
Sorted, if team complain about unfair groups they can do one, you can't choose your neighbours afterall
Don't really understand all the fake outrage. I know Platini and all Football governing bodies are generally disliked, but I don't see the problem in having a tournament across a continent that isn't really that big.
Some here are talking about how its only for money purposes and not really suggesting why?
There will be no need to build 6-7 new stadiums which won't get used properly after the tournament. No need to build new travel infrastructure as you can target large cities which can handle it.
As for UEFA 'not considering the fans, what with all the travel involved'.....Hang on, you might only have to get a Jubilee line to go and see one or two of the matches if Wembley Stadium is used, which it almost certainly will.
I don't like the idea because I think there is something special about fans congregating in one place.
But I don't think it's such a bad idea that it shoudln't be tried as an experiment.
The real problem is the expansion to 24 teams. Way too many and will dilute the quality of the competition. Also a terrible number for organising a format.
First reaction is "that will be chaos" but while it is clearly the option they have taken rather than A. Give it to Turkey or Azerbaijan B. Give it to the same countries who've had it recently it might just have some advantages.
1. It becomes a truly Pan-European event
2. in a time of austerity you don't have to spend lots of money on new stadiums or infrastructure
3. You can involve a lot of smaller countries that wouldn't want or couldn't afford to host the whole thing. So a group based in the British Isles could see games in Glasgow, Cardiff, Dublin and Wembley. All existing stadiums up to scratch and something local fans can get into. OK, it might be Belgium v Poland but still an attractive game.
4 the final can be a major football stadium in an major football city
5 The distances are no more than hosting a world cup in China or in the USA. or Canada which looks very likely for 2006 or 2030 so why not.
Travel for fans could be a major negative but it is done of CL games and qualifiers where fans fly in then out so it could be doable.
No doubt if Wembley doesn't get the final it will all be because Plantini hates us though : - )
Lets keep in mind that after we were snubbed for the 2018 World Cup, this is likely to be the only chance we get to see any major international tournament football on these shores for another 20-30 years minimum.
I don't think it's a bad idea, if you go away with England you get had over for fares anyway and this would also stop people being charged 200 pounds for a night in a tent in a French cow field near the ground and motorway as their should be tons of accommodation available. It will be interesting. Much better than a world cup in the middle of a desert
First reaction is "that will be chaos" but while it is clearly the option they have taken rather than A. Give it to Turkey or Azerbaijan B. Give it to the same countries who've had it recently it might just have some advantages.
1. It becomes a truly Pan-European event
2. in a time of austerity you don't have to spend lots of money on new stadiums or infrastructure
3. You can involve a lot of smaller countries that wouldn't want or couldn't afford to host the whole thing. So a group based in the British Isles could see games in Glasgow, Cardiff, Dublin and Wembley. All existing stadiums up to scratch and something local fans can get into. OK, it might be Belgium v Poland but still an attractive game.
4 the final can be a major football stadium in an major football city
5 The distances are no more than hosting a world cup in China or in the USA. or Canada which looks very likely for 2006 or 2030 so why not.
Travel for fans could be a major negative but it is done of CL games and qualifiers where fans fly in then out so it could be doable.
No doubt if Wembley doesn't get the final it will all be because Plantini hates us though : - )
First reaction is "that will be chaos" but while it is clearly the option they have taken rather than A. Give it to Turkey or Azerbaijan B. Give it to the same countries who've had it recently it might just have some advantages.
1. It becomes a truly Pan-European event
2. in a time of austerity you don't have to spend lots of money on new stadiums or infrastructure
3. You can involve a lot of smaller countries that wouldn't want or couldn't afford to host the whole thing. So a group based in the British Isles could see games in Glasgow, Cardiff, Dublin and Wembley. All existing stadiums up to scratch and something local fans can get into. OK, it might be Belgium v Poland but still an attractive game.
4 the final can be a major football stadium in an major football city
5 The distances are no more than hosting a world cup in China or in the USA. or Canada which looks very likely for 2006 or 2030 so why not.
Travel for fans could be a major negative but it is done of CL games and qualifiers where fans fly in then out so it could be doable.
No doubt if Wembley doesn't get the final it will all be because Plantini hates us though : - )
2006 ? You're living in the past Henry !! ;-)
Stands on one leg playing the flute (one for the kids there)
Comments
Stupid idea anyway.
In all honesty it's just another money-making scheme that doesn't take traditional tournament supporters into account all in the aid of desperately trying to paper over the huge crack that they couldn't attract enough interest to bankroll the event. Can't wait to see the list of host cities.
So if there are 24 teams, then that's 6 groups, you have each group in a different country (so at this stage no more travelling than usual). The quarters are arranged such that they are in a country neighbouring (or at least close) to the countries the two quarter finalist played their group games in. Similarly, the semi finals would be in close by countries. This keeps the total travelling to something sensible.
As an example. Group A is in England, Group B is in Germany, quarter between winner group A, runner up group B is played in Holland
Group C is in Spain, Group D in Portugal, corresponding quarter is in France. Semi between the two winners is played in Belgium.
I'm sure you could work it out such that, apart from the final, all the travelling is mostly just border hoping, where cheap flights or trains are less then £100 return. Compare that to hosting the whole thing in England, where the return train fare from London to Manchester is more than that.
1) It would be entirely feasible to work it out by distance, but I doubt UEFA will bother
2) It will scupper literally hundreds of "cheap" flights during the tournament, including those that normal business travellers or holidaymakers would be looking to take. The likes of Easyjet and Ryanair will have their tongues wagging even now. For years, football travellers have been getting ripped off with massively inflated prices deliberately charged around sporting events such as summer tournaments, now, without being confined to one country it will make everyone suffer.
I like the idea of one or two countries hosting it. It gives that country something to look forward to (Remember Euro 96).
More money for the suits then..tough on the fans and teams though maybe.
Other than that, can't say I'm dead against it - could be interesting as a one off.
Sorted, if team complain about unfair groups they can do one, you can't choose your neighbours afterall
Some here are talking about how its only for money purposes and not really suggesting why?
There will be no need to build 6-7 new stadiums which won't get used properly after the tournament.
No need to build new travel infrastructure as you can target large cities which can handle it.
As for UEFA 'not considering the fans, what with all the travel involved'.....Hang on, you might only have to get a Jubilee line to go and see one or two of the matches if Wembley Stadium is used, which it almost certainly will.
Stop moaning for the sake of it!
But I don't think it's such a bad idea that it shoudln't be tried as an experiment.
The real problem is the expansion to 24 teams. Way too many and will dilute the quality of the competition. Also a terrible number for organising a format.
1. It becomes a truly Pan-European event
2. in a time of austerity you don't have to spend lots of money on new stadiums or infrastructure
3. You can involve a lot of smaller countries that wouldn't want or couldn't afford to host the whole thing. So a group based in the British Isles could see games in Glasgow, Cardiff, Dublin and Wembley. All existing stadiums up to scratch and something local fans can get into. OK, it might be Belgium v Poland but still an attractive game.
4 the final can be a major football stadium in an major football city
5 The distances are no more than hosting a world cup in China or in the USA. or Canada which looks very likely for 2006 or 2030 so why not.
Travel for fans could be a major negative but it is done of CL games and qualifiers where fans fly in then out so it could be doable.
No doubt if Wembley doesn't get the final it will all be because Plantini hates us though : - )
Then the knock-stages could be played in neighbouring countries.
(one for the kids there)
: - )
No I don't think so either.