Jump to content

Uefa Euro 2016 To Sweden/norway?


Recommended Posts

I don't think the bid will be unbalanced. It's not possible to split up the final of course, and it will thus be located at the most well-known (and largest?) stadium in Scandinavia, Nya Ullevi (Gothenburg), but the other finals and matches will probably be divided equally between the two countries.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I seriously doubt that, unless you start building or expanding some of your stadiums...

Of course, and getting governmental support to expand/build new stadia is probably one of the motivations for the Norwegian soccer federation to join the Swedish bid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course, and getting governmental support to expand/build new stadia is probably one of the motivations for the Norwegian soccer federation to join the Swedish bid.

Has the norwigian government said to what extend they will help pay the bill for expanding stadions and other investments?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it's too early for that, but the soccer federation has already started to argue their case saying that the stadia will be needed anyway and that the investments will be far smaller than for instance a WOG. I however think there is very little chanse that a UEFA championship bid can derail a Norwegian WOG bid, the momentum of the latter is too large at the moment. It's either only a WOG bid or WOG+UEFA bid. And, since I unlike most Norwegians is not that interested in soccer, I would argue that a WOG is much for fun for money than a couple of soccer matches......

Link to post
Share on other sites
Are they really just going to sit back and let Sweden run with the most importent matches, including the finals?

Anyways, I am asuming that the stadiums will be at least 31.000 since that is the demand...

Why don't Sweden bid alone? They would have far more possibilities...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Why don't Sweden bid alone? They would have far more possibilities...

That might be too big a job, but no doubt that could do it alone, if they were willing to spend the money on it. So could Denmark. But I doubt either of them will spend the money to do it alone...

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd highly prefer a joint bid with Denmark rather than Norway.. what has Norway to do with soccer? :rolleyes:

And football stadiums...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither Sweden, nor Denmark could host alone onless they want 4 to 6 stadiums to be white elephants. Neither country has enough cities of 250,000ish to even think of biding alone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Neither Sweden, nor Denmark could host alone onless they want 4 to 6 stadiums to be white elephants. Neither country has enough cities of 250,000ish to even think of biding alone.

The sizy of the cities doesnt really matter, does it?. And as for stadiums they can be expanded and renovated to acomidate both the seats needed for a euro cup, and the seats needed afterwards. Just like they are doing right now et the euro 2008 with temporary seats.

So there is no need for huge stadiums after the euro cup, like others have done.

But I never said it would be easy or cheap. Just that it can be done...

I'd highly prefer a joint bid with Denmark rather than Norway.. what has Norway to do with soccer? :rolleyes:

Well, that is what I think most people thought. But Sweden is been pretty clear in its rejection of Denmark and the Football Asciation. So there is no doubt that they at least, prefer Norway as a partner. Perhaps because they will at this current plan, likely to host the majority of the big matches.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Neither Sweden, nor Denmark could host alone onless they want 4 to 6 stadiums to be white elephants. Neither country has enough cities of 250,000ish to even think of biding alone.

did someone spoke about bidding alone for Denmark or Norway? :huh:

I was refering about a joint bid with Denmark rather than Norway.. so Sweden/Denmark 2016 bid

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd highly prefer a joint bid with Denmark rather than Norway.. what has Norway to do with soccer? :rolleyes:

Well, I feel I have to defend my more soccer interested friends here. Soccer is actually the most popular sport even in Norway, there are more organized soccer players than atlethes in Nordic skiing, for instance.

Certainly, however, it is in skiing, skating, and various boat sports Norway have made a difference in international sports, but considering our population I think we have fared reasonably well also in soccer. Regarding the national team, we were certainly not in the laughing stock when advancing from the group play in 1998 FIFA WC after beating Brazil. The national team has since had a down period, but seems to be on the rise again now. On the club level, Rosenborg of Trondheim actually played in Champion's League every season between 1995 and 2006, except the 2003/2004 season, and in the 1996/1997 season they even went to the quarter finals after beating Milan. Not many European clubs have a similar Champion's League track record, and certainly no other club in Scandinavia. Since this is an olympic forum, I also have to mention that Norway went to the semi final in Berlin 1936 SOG, and beat Germany in the bronze final. Der Führer on the sideline was not too happy. In 2000 Norway won the female SOG soccer tournament.

To me, however, soccer is a rather boring game....1 1/2 hours on the same field, and only one or two goals, with a lot of luck.....

It's my feeling that Norway, with it's long national border is closer tied to Sweden than Denmark both historical and on a cultural and personal level, and certainly Norwegians and Swedes in general understand each other linguistically much better than the Swedes and Danes. That is my guess why Sweden chose Norway instead of Sweden, but I really don't know.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I feel I have to defend my more soccer interested friends here. Soccer is actually the most popular sport even in Norway, there are more organized soccer players than atlethes in Nordic skiing, for instance.

Certainly, however, it is in skiing, skating, and various boat sports Norway have made a difference in international sports, but considering our population I think we have fared reasonably well also in soccer. Regarding the national team, we were certainly not in the laughing stock when advancing from the group play in 1998 FIFA WC after beating Brazil. The national team has since had a down period, but seems to be on the rise again now. On the club level, Rosenborg of Trondheim actually played in Champion's League every season between 1995 and 2006, except the 2003/2004 season, and in the 1996/1997 season they even went to the quarter finals after beating Milan. Not many European clubs have a similar Champion's League track record, and certainly no other club in Scandinavia. Since this is an olympic forum, I also have to mention that Norway went to the semi final in Berlin 1936 SOG, and beat Germany in the bronze final. Der Führer on the sideline was not too happy. In 2000 Norway won the female SOG soccer tournament.

To me, however, soccer is a rather boring game....1 1/2 hours on the same field, and only one or two goals, with a lot of luck.....

It's my feeling that Norway, with it's long national border is closer tied to Sweden than Denmark both historical and on a cultural and personal level, and certainly Norwegians and Swedes in general understand each other linguistically much better than the Swedes and Danes. That is my guess why Sweden chose Norway instead of Sweden, but I really don't know.

I agree, and I certainly think that Norway is a great football nation. They are however, as with many other things in life, very underrated. No doubt in scandinavia, Rosenborg has a great name, though in the last few years, my team fck, is also moving forward.

Anyways, yes Norway and sweden is closer then Sweden and Denmark, but I still think Sweden hos chosen Norway, because the industry itself is smaller there, and they can be more in control.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Why would Norway come on board if Sweden will be "in control"? Seems little in it for them in that case.

well, that was kinda my point. But I guess they are doing it because for most people it wont matter as they will watch it on tv or at least know about where it is taking place. So there will still be benifits for a country, even if it wont host the big games...

Link to post
Share on other sites
well, that was kinda my point. But I guess they are doing it because for most people it wont matter as they will watch it on tv or at least know about where it is taking place. So there will still be benifits for a country, even if it wont host the big games...

Well, at least 2 groups would be based in Norway, 3 if the event is enlarged to 24, wich would mean that at least 2 of Germany, England, France, Spain, Italy would be in Norway. The 3rd place game would be in Norway and so would one of the semifinals because almost all agreements state that semi and final or semi and 3rd, also the opening match would be played in Oslo.

For the most part I think Norway is on board because of the limited footballing infrastructure and to help develope more players and top athletes that are being lost to other sports. Also putting major new stadiums in Oslo and Trondheim would mean that they would have a cornerstone venue for a future WOG that the Norwegians will get in the 2020s or 2030s. Also its means major exposure fore Norway that will help in tourism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree, and I certainly think that Norway is a great football nation. They are however, as with many other things in life, very underrated. No doubt in scandinavia, Rosenborg has a great name, though in the last few years, my team fck, is also moving forward.

Probably "decent" is still a better descriptionb of the state of Norwegian soccer at the moment :)

Yes, FCK is the leading Scandinavian club at the moment, which is good, because it may mean more space for some other sports than soccer in Norwegian media during the summer season...

Well, at least 2 groups would be based in Norway, 3 if the event is enlarged to 24, wich would mean that at least 2 of Germany, England, France, Spain, Italy would be in Norway. The 3rd place game would be in Norway and so would one of the semifinals because almost all agreements state that semi and final or semi and 3rd, also the opening match would be played in Oslo.

Interesting information. Sounds like you're an insider?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, at least 2 groups would be based in Norway, 3 if the event is enlarged to 24, wich would mean that at least 2 of Germany, England, France, Spain, Italy would be in Norway. The 3rd place game would be in Norway and so would one of the semifinals because almost all agreements state that semi and final or semi and 3rd, also the opening match would be played in Oslo.

For the most part I think Norway is on board because of the limited footballing infrastructure and to help develope more players and top athletes that are being lost to other sports. Also putting major new stadiums in Oslo and Trondheim would mean that they would have a cornerstone venue for a future WOG that the Norwegians will get in the 2020s or 2030s. Also its means major exposure fore Norway that will help in tourism.

I think thats pretty much what i said...

But I still dont see Norway getting any finals, if all they have is stadiums taking 31.000 people.

But lets see what they have planed. If they start getting serious, maybe they will build something new, and at least they have to have 4 stadiums over the limmit, which I believe at the moment is 31.000.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...