Jump to content

Euro 2016


Recommended Posts

Madrid has no hope of winning in 2016, they are probably going to passed over for Berlin and Paris in the near future for the European hosted games. Germany last hosted in 1972 and France in 1924, Spain was in 1992, the IOC would be far more likely to give them games than a country where there is still a memory of a games being there.

only your opinion

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 99
  • Created
  • Last Reply
only your opinion

There is no way that 2016 is going anywhere else than the Americas, 2020 will probably go to South Africa or to Asia and 2024 will be a 100 years since France last hosted the Summer Olympic Games and Paris will be handed to them on a platter. Than 2028 will either be Africa or Asia, 2032 the Americas again and than 2036 would be Europe and almost certainly Berlin again because of the 100 year anniversary, especially after the 1936 Olympics.

Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no way that 2016 is going anywhere else than the Americas, 2020 will probably go to South Africa or to Asia and 2024 will be a 100 years since France last hosted the Summer Olympic Games and Paris will be handed to them on a platter. Than 2028 will either be Africa or Asia, 2032 the Americas again and than 2036 would be Europe and almost certainly Berlin again because of the 100 year anniversary, especially after the 1936 Olympics.

Although a Madrid Olympics in the next decade or so can't be completely discounted (if Paris had gone out in the third round in 2005 they'd maybe have had 2012), I do think it's unlikely given that both Paris and Berlin are interested - not to mention the Eastern European cities that would like a chance.

I don't see 2016 already pencilled in for the Americas - there's a sentimental pull towards Rio but they'd also have to produce a water-tight bid (infrastructure problems may scare the IOC, particularly after Athens). Chicago will obviously be an early favourite, but they won't benefit from any sentimental pull at all - their bid will possibly be judged more harshly as a result and will have to be near perfect to make any significant impact - a safer bet than Rio but without sex-appeal.

The arguement that Tokyo can't win because of Beijing 2008 is outdated in my opinion - the days when Asia would only be awarded a Games every twenty years are gone - back then there were only two countries capable of hosting - now there are several. I believe that Asia will host more often in the future to the detriment of both Europe and North America.

If Rio manages to secure 2016 Cape Town will be completely out of the running for 2020 - this would not only be two new frontier countries hosting successive Olympics but two successive continents. Despite the fact they want Latin America and Africa to host soon, I don't think the IOC would want to put themselves in position of having them follow each other - more likely they would return to a 'traditional' host inbetween.

I do believe that next time Paris bid they will win - we have seen cities in similar positions before win comfortably (Athens and Beijing). But Paris have to be careful that Europe aren't awarded 2020 if they don't intend to bid for that year. If Italy, Germany and Spain seem likely to bid with their cities France would be playing a dangerous Game if they waited until 2024 with Paris.

The IOC has not shown an overwhelming regard for centennial anniversaries so far, although they haven't really been offered viable options yet (Athens 1996 provided a poor bid that didn't address their infrastructure problems). However, if they were to award a centennial anniversary Games I'm sure Berlin would be at the bottom of the list. Berlin have a good chance to host the Olympics soon, providing Munich isn't successful for the Winters, but forget about 2036 - the IOC won't want reminding about 1936.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Could they ever manage a future 24 tournament alone? and then.. What's exciting in a joint bid between 2 regions which make part of the same country?

I'd rather opt for a scottish joint bid with Ireland.

I don't think Wales have enough possible locations for major stadia. The Millennium Stadium in Cardiff is world class but I don't see how cities such as Swansea, Wrexham or Aberystwyth could possibly sustain very big venues after the tournament was over.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ going on with the EURO-thing...

I doubt that Scotland and Wales can host a EURO. Unfortunately they lacks in cities and stadia, expecially when the tournament will be of 24 teams. That means 10 stadia. So 5 in Scotland and 5 in Wales. I don't know so much Wales, but finding 5 big-enough cities is really hard. I think only Glasgow (pop.630'000), Edinburgh (pop.450'000) (obviously), Dundee (143'000), Aberdeen (200'000) and Perth (43'000) can host something. And note that Perth is really a tiny city.

Anyway I'd love a Sottish EURO...althoug i'd prefer an italian one :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no way that 2016 is going anywhere else than the Americas, 2020 will probably go to South Africa or to Asia and 2024 will be a 100 years since France last hosted the Summer Olympic Games and Paris will be handed to them on a platter. Than 2028 will either be Africa or Asia, 2032 the Americas again and than 2036 would be Europe and almost certainly Berlin again because of the 100 year anniversary, especially after the 1936 Olympics.

Hmmm, the IOC didn't seem that available to satisfy centennial-celebrating bids the first time it happened (1996), because Athens's bid was below the requirements. I don't believe the IOC will do that, even if the bidding cities have more than enough capacity. It would be like returning to the old times when "Hey! Let's give the Games to this city -- I vote in favor!" was an habit in the IOC.

Could they ever manage a future 24 tournament alone? and then.. What's exciting in a joint bid between 2 regions which make part of the same country?

Of course not. That's why if they want to bid, they'd better do it for 2016, while 16 teams is still the maximum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, let me get this straight.....

UEFA wants the Euro to go to countries who would never be able to host a world cup BUT they also want to expand it to 24 teams.

That is so typical of UEFA. Keep it at 16 I say. I don't think there are more than about 16 quality teams in Europe anyway. Putting it up to 24 would mean the inclusion of teams whose hopes of winning it, or even getting out of their groups are slim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

disn't you understand that UEFA is in the hand of the little federations now? it's obvious they want a bigger tournament

- to have more probabilities to enter the final phase

- to have more money for more stadia

let's consider some of the federations in europe and comment if they can host a EURO:

- portugal: of course they can, 2004.

- spain, france, england, germany, italy: obviously yes.

- benelux: only in joint bids, 200

- scotland, wales, ireland: only joint

- northern nations: donnow maybe someone could alone (ex:norway) but donnow if they have so many big cities to host. anyway they recently bidded toghether

- russia: alone

- east countries: only joint

- little ones like andorra, san marino, malta, monaco...never alone, nor in joint. maybe only monaco can have possibility to host something of a hypothetical france bid, or s.marino of an italian one. but what about the name? can france or italy host something named france+monaco or italy+san marino (or +malta?)---> don't think so [or spain/france with andorra of course].

- greece: bidded alone but not so sure about the little host cities

- turkey: bidded alone but no way

- other ex-URSS states: only if toghether but seems so sci-fi.

have i forgotten someone?

Link to post
Share on other sites
So, let me get this straight.....

UEFA wants the Euro to go to countries who would never be able to host a world cup BUT they also want to expand it to 24 teams.

That is so typical of UEFA. Keep it at 16 I say. I don't think there are more than about 16 quality teams in Europe anyway. Putting it up to 24 would mean the inclusion of teams whose hopes of winning it, or even getting out of their groups are slim.

1) Did UEFA stated it wants the European Championship on such countries? -- I never heard that.

2) Did UEFA stated it wants to expand the tournament to 24 teams? -- As I know, it was 3 federations (Ireland, Scotland and Sweden) that requested a feasibility study. UEFA decided not do expand until 2016.

Nonetheless, I agree that there are not many European teams who cannot play in the Euro because it only allows 16 teams. But in terms of finance, marketing/publicity and broadcast rights, UEFA would have a pretty larger income.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1) uefa didn't stated that, but seems it wants to

2) there's a feasibility study on the go and there are many possibilities that it'll be accepted soon, as it was told they wanted to expand the tournament already in 2012.

of course expanding the tournament will mean more income 4 UEFA but do you think it's better to perform a high quality tournament, or have income from little nations like azerbaijan or moldova???

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nonetheless, I agree that there are not many good European teams who cannot play in the Euro because it only allows 16 teams. But in terms of finance, marketing/publicity and broadcast rights, UEFA would have a pretty larger income.

Forgot to adjectivate.

1) uefa didn't stated that, but seems it wants to

2) there's a feasibility study on the go and there are many possibilities that it'll be accepted soon, as it was told they wanted to expand the tournament already in 2012.

of course expanding the tournament will mean more income 4 UEFA but do you think it's better to perform a high quality tournament, or have income from little nations like azerbaijan or moldova???

UEFA wants to give a chance to every European nation that can show it is able and wishful to host Europe's top national football event. I don't think anyone can blame UEFA for that.

I wouldn't go as far as saying Azerbaijan or Moldova would qualify :blink: But the likes of Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Finland, Hungary... and so and so, would probably be very welcomed. It has to have a compromise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Could they ever manage a future 24 tournament alone? and then.. What's exciting in a joint bid between 2 regions which make part of the same country?

I'd rather opt for a scottish joint bid with Ireland.

To be honest, I would say a Scotland-Wales bid has a better chance that Scotland-Ireland, particularly a Scotland-Ireland one along 2008 lines.

Wales has a much higher base of stadia to work from than Ireland does. As well as the Millennium Stadium, a new stadium is currently being planned for Cardiff City with an initial capacity of 25,000, but scope to rise to as big as 60,000. The Liberty Stadium in Swansea currently has a 20,000 capacity, but I understand it has been built in such a way so that it could be expanded to 40,000. And expressions of desire to develop Wrexham's Racecourse Ground recently emerged.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing I'm having difficulty understanding is the top teams, mainly England. Are complaining about playing against teams such as Andorra, San Marino, Malta and the tiny countries who have very little chance of qualifying. They find the games are useless as the minnows are only there to potentially tie a match at best and they are afraid to risk injury to the stars of the squad against easy opposition. Its been proposed the lower ranked nations compete in a qualifying tournament just to take on the higher ranked countries to qualify for the final tournament.

Yet there is talk of a 24 team tournament!?!?!? Thats crazy for ANY confederation. The Euro's would just look like a mini qualifying tournament until the Round of 16... which is where it's at right now!

I dont agree with either theories. Why wreck a good thing. Qualifying is interesting with the upsets and with groups such as Group B with Italy, France, Ukraine and Scotland... can't go wrong. And in the Championships the 16 who qualify are well deserving of the spots... minus Austria who would never qualify :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

The trouble is when you have players who are playing 38 games in the league, up to 8 in the FA Cup, 5 or 6 in the league cup, several in the Champions League or the UEFA Cup and 6 or 7 games for England every season. Every other year they'll have an extra 5 or 6 games in the summer.

I know the players get paid a hell of a lot, but when you win 3-0 against a team (normally a good result) and get slated for not scoring 7 or 8, you have to question whether it's worth having these games and these kind of teams in the qualifying stages.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Belgium

Czech Republic

Denmark

England

France

Germany

Italy

Netherlands

Norway

Portugal

Romania

Slovenia

Spain

Sweden

Turkey

Bulgaria

Croatia

Greece

Latvia

Russia

Switzerland

Ireland

Poland

Serbia

Ukraine

That is 24 teams that have qualified for major tournaments since 2000, almost all of them multiple times. (Ukraine, Ireland, Romania and Norway not)

Link to post
Share on other sites
And there's plenty more capable.

Namely Finland and Bosnia with hige profil players.

If more teams are in the Euro, than more teams can get high level competition, allowing for better developement. If the top flight of European teasm can have constant qualifying into major tournaments it could ease the stranglehold the big teams of France, Italy, Germany, England and Spain have.

It will also allow better developement for countries like Finland, Norway et al. Success breeds success, look at Croatia.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i can´t see a joint bid winning for the 3rd time in a row

i think if Italy bid again, they will get it this time (if they get her problems fixed)

i don´t think Germany will bid for 2016 - we are not so mean ;)

i think Norway/Sweden will come up

and Spain should bit, but if they are really focusing on SOG then it is her own fault

Russia could bit, but i don´t see them win

a England WC in 2018 could destroy all hopes for Scotland/Wales

and a upgrade to 24 teams would destroy the hopes from smaller countries to host, even in joint bids

so i will say ITALY 2016

Link to post
Share on other sites
i can´t see a joint bid winning for the 3rd time in a row

i think if Italy bid again, they will get it this time (if they get her problems fixed)

i don´t think Germany will bid for 2016 - we are not so mean ;)

i think Norway/Sweden will come up

and Spain should bit, but if they are really focusing on SOG then it is her own fault

Russia could bit, but i don´t see them win

a England WC in 2018 could destroy all hopes for Scotland/Wales

and a upgrade to 24 teams would destroy the hopes from smaller countries to host, even in joint bids

so i will say ITALY 2016

I would say France would be able to beat Italy because of the stadium problems in Italy that are not present in France.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I would say France would be able to beat Italy because of the stadium problems in Italy that are not present in France.

Yeah, I've said 2016 will be awarded to a single large western football-passionate nation -- France, Spain or Italy (those that haven't hosted football events for the longest time).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Spain is focusing on 2016 Olympics, but also Rome is.

I think there's no connection between SOG and EURO. Although organizing both of them in the same summer is quite impossible. :)

Anyway I donnow if Italy will bid again, but I hope it will.

If France bids against us, they'll surely have advantage of the stadia thing, but the teams' owners in here are saying they want to build or renovate their stadia although without EURO (hope so...!!!). Anyway we can play the "we need it, we are poor" thing, as recently seen seems to work! :D ahahaha

Again on Spain, I think they want to host a WC, so...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Spain is focusing on 2016 Olympics, but also Rome is.

I think there's no connection between SOG and EURO. Although organizing both of them in the same summer is quite impossible. :)

Anyway I donnow if Italy will bid again, but I hope it will.

If France bids against us, they'll surely have advantage of the stadia thing, but the teams' owners in here are saying they want to build or renovate their stadia although without EURO (hope so...!!!). Anyway we can play the "we need it, we are poor" thing, as recently seen seems to work! :D ahahaha

Again on Spain, I think they want to host a WC, so...

If, by some miracle, Madrid or Rome is award the 2016 games in 2009, the contract the city, the NOC and the government signs with the IOC includes a clause that no other major non-Olympic related events are allowed to take place in the same country in the same year. This directly affects the European championships since they will be awarded in 2011 for the 2016 year. This means that if Rome or Madrid wins 2016, than Spain or Italy can not bid for Euro 2016. Scotland was prevented from bidding for this vary reason for 2012.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...