• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Euro 2020

lunix said:
Do you really believe that?

Lets just saddle host nations with more debt so that the happy multinational corporations can continue to line their coffers with exorbitant prices. Take from the future generation so that you can get your kicks NOW. Splendid idea :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yes i do believe it, i do believe UEFA and all there crony's are after as much money as possible!!

Do i want it to happen?? No
Do i like it??? No
 
Park Lane James said:
Well done UEFA, you've managed to ruin what was a fantastic tournament. The Euros are better than the World Cup (IMO), as the talent is much more condensed. Now, it may as well be a club competition how it will be played across the entire continent. What a joke.

UEFA are a bunch of money-grabbing ****s
Click to expand...

Can just see it being spread over 6 months or some thing stupid like that.
 
what do people want - competitions to stay in exactly the same format for eternity? Now THAT would get boring.

Good to see Uefa and Fifa mixing things up a little recently, if it doesn't work out im sure it'll revert back or get tweaked here and there or whatever.

Jts' idea on the first page about close by cities in different countries hosting together is fantastic imv and probably not a million miles from what we will end up with.

As for the costs - just get yourself a 2week or 30 day inter rail ticket and Europe is your oyster for a reasonable price.
 
True, it could be expensive to host for countries without the infrastructure.

However, there are a number of countries that already have the infrastructure. England or Germany or France could host it immediately. Russia would also be able to host it by 2020 after their world cup. Italy and Spain wouldn't need much extra. So that gives France (2016), England (2020), Germany (2024) and Russia (2028 ). The economic crisis should be over by the late 2020s allowing Italy and Spain to host 2032 and 2036.

So there is only a problem for 2040 if repeating the hosts every 24 years is a problem. I don't see this as an urgent need to change the format of a competition that is successful.
 
Reggie_Mentalist said:
Agreed, and it will end in farce !

A pathetic idea, but it's Platini so there's no surprise. Add the equally farcical decision to award Qatar a world cup...and the only conclusion is that world/european football is run by idiots, but we all knew that anyway.
Click to expand...

They do some good work too, it must be said. They banned snoods.

Seriously though what the fudge is happening to football? We need a revolution.
 
Euro 2020

This is such a dumb plan. For so many reasons, yet the geniuses at Uefa were never going to listen to fans. Granted it's not yet set in stone.


Euro 2020 games will be held in 13 cities, Uefa announces

Euro 2020 will be held in 13 cities, with the semi-finals and final played at the same stadium, Uefa has announced.

European football's governing body has confirmed earlier plans to hold the tournament across the continent.

However host nations who do qualify for the tournament will play at least two of their three group matches at home.

Gianni Infantino, Uefa Secretary General, told a news conference in Nyon, Switzerland, on Friday: "The matches will be split into 13 packages - 12 cities who will have three group stage matches and one knock-out round match, and one city will host the two semi-finals and final.

"There will be only one venue per country and it means the semi-finals and the final will be played in the same venue."

The Football Association has already put forward Wembley as a possible venue for the final. It expects to face rival bids from Berlin, Istanbul, Madrid and Rome.

Istanbul is the favourite for the final - but only if it loses its bid for the 2020 Olympics. Uefa president Michel Platini has already said he would back the Turkish city and he confirmed his position again on Friday.

Infantino also confirmed that Uefa will take travel distances into account when allocating venues, with a maximum flight time of two hours between host cities, where possible.

A final decision on venues for Euro 2020, the tournament's 60th anniversary, will be made in September next year.
Click to expand...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21203253
 
Last edited:
I echo PLJ's sentiments. Way to ruin a tournament that was perfect that way it was:

16 teams
You get the good games early e.g. Germany v Holland
None of crap teams from Africa, South America or Asia

And Sepp Blatter's response when asked about the potential cost for fans?: "The tournament could either be in one country with 12 stadiums, or one stadium in 12 or 13 cities, with each venue getting four games. We have talked about 12 or 13 host cities because it could be a tournament of 24 or 32 nations. In these days of cheap air travel, anything is possible. It is easier to go from London to Paris or Berlin than Cardiff to Gdansk. We will discuss it very seriously – it's an idea I feel really passionate about, and it would be a lot easier from a financial perspective. It is not easy to build airports and 10 stadiums in a country. This would be an easier arrangement, especially when we are in the middle of an economic crisis. But it is just an idea."

Yeah because the airlines wouldn't do anything cynical, like say raising the prices of flights to those destinations about 400% when the tournament is on would they?
 
These venues will be assumed to be neutral, perhaps with some teams playing at home through luck of the draw. So we could see Germany v Holland at Wembley in the first round while England play Romania in the Allianz. Where would be the sense in that?

Would you also expect to shift 90000 tickets for Croatia v Switerland at Wembley?

Should at least cluster the cities so rotate between Central Europe, the med and Northern Europe
 
However host nations who do qualify for the tournament will play at least two of their three group matches at home.



Nope, the aim is to not make them neutral.
 
braineclipse said:
I don't get why exactly people are so negative about this.

What's the big deal exactly?
Click to expand...



It's brick for fans having to pay even more money to follow their teams, brick for the environment with all the air travel that will be required and brick for the atmosphere that will be missing due to the countries only hosting a handful of games.


To name the first three that come to mind.
 
Spursalot said:
It's brick for fans having to pay even more money to follow their teams, brick for the environment with all the air travel that will be required and brick for the atmosphere that will be missing due to the countries only hosting a handful of games.


To name the first three that come to mind.
Click to expand...

Realistically, how many fans follow their teams throughout a normal EC tournament? Not trying to be sarcastic, genuinely interested. Seems like it would be very difficult, especially post the group stages.

Would it be that much more expensive as long as UEFA do what they're saying they will do and make sure group stage games for team aren't across the continent, but relatively close?

I suppose the environment issue is a somewhat valid one,, but not one I would expect UEFA to care mush about. If true that host nations will have two "home games" then surely that goes some way to compensate for that, giving a lot of fans shorter travel distances for quite a few of the games.

I could see the atmosphere being a bit worse off, perhaps. But that's difficult to tell before actually trying. I would imagine that the atmosphere in quite a few of the cities would be quite good. Again, creating more "home games" could easily create a very good atmosphere.

Of course there will be some negatives by changing the structure like this, as there will be with any change. But there also seems to be some positives and a decent thing for UEFA to test out once to see how it turns out. Just seems to me that a lot of people are reacting with some gut change=bad reaction to this.
 
braineclipse said:
Realistically, how many fans follow their teams throughout a normal EC tournament? Not trying to be sarcastic, genuinely interested. Seems like it would be very difficult, especially post the group stages.

Would it be that much more expensive as long as UEFA do what they're saying they will do and make sure group stage games for team aren't across the continent, but relatively close?

I suppose the environment issue is a somewhat valid one,, but not one I would expect UEFA to care mush about. If true that host nations will have two "home games" then surely that goes some way to compensate for that, giving a lot of fans shorter travel distances for quite a few of the games.

I could see the atmosphere being a bit worse off, perhaps. But that's difficult to tell before actually trying. I would imagine that the atmosphere in quite a few of the cities would be quite good. Again, creating more "home games" could easily create a very good atmosphere.

Of course there will be some negatives by changing the structure like this, as there will be with any change. But there also seems to be some positives and a decent thing for UEFA to test out once to see how it turns out. Just seems to me that a lot of people are reacting with some gut change=bad reaction to this.
Click to expand...

But why change it in the first place? What is wrong with the format as it currently exists?

I'm all for change if it's for a good reason, but not just for the sake of it.

Ok not too many people can afford to follow a team throughout an entire tournament, but some may take the decision to book 10 days off work to follow the their team (assuming they get there of course) for the knockout stages. Instead of having a base in one country, they have to travel across Europe to follow their country. What's the point?

We all know the airlines will bump up the prices. I wonder if UEFA have some lucrative deal with one of the airlines in the pipeline maybe? Wouldn't surprise me.
 
Jurgen the German said:
But why change it in the first place? What is wrong with the format as it currently exists?

I'm all for change if it's for a good reason, but not just for the sake of it.

Ok not too many people can afford to follow a team throughout an entire tournament, but some may take the decision to book 10 days off work to follow the their team (assuming they get there of course) for the knockout stages. Instead of having a base in one country, they have to travel across Europe to follow their country. What's the point?

We all know the airlines will bump up the prices. I wonder if UEFA have some lucrative deal with one of the airlines in the pipeline maybe? Wouldn't surprise me.
Click to expand...

It depends who you think the audience are. I mean, let's say it was the uk netball finals. The vast majority of people serious about watching this would actually go to the tournament, maybe a significant number would then be satisfied by you tube clips. But that's it.

For the Euros you have maybe ten million people in England alone who want to watch this. Lets say England progress and get 10,000 unique fans to each game the that's maybe 60,000 who are actually there. Comparing the number of people put out by going to the actual games and the overall audience , and it's a relatively small percentage. So I guess fan convenience isn't a big deal for UEFA.

Also maybe the agenda isn't to get big numbers of fans from each team at the games maybe they prefer to have a significan number of locals too?

Not saying its my preference either way, just that UEFA may not actually be prioritising the fans who want to follow their team.
 
Euro 2020 will be held in 13 cities, with the semi-finals and final played at the same stadium, Uefa has announced.

European football's governing body has confirmed earlier plans to hold the tournament across the continent.

However host nations who do qualify for the tournament will play at least two of their three group matches at home.

Gianni Infantino, Uefa Secretary General, told a news conference in Nyon, Switzerland, on Friday: "The matches will be split into 13 packages - 12 cities who will have three group stage matches and one knock-out round match, and one city will host the two semi-finals and final.

"There will be only one venue per country and it means the semi-finals and the final will be played in the same venue."
Click to expand...

So that is potentially 12 "host countries" for six groups (assuming they stick to 4 team groups). Two hosts per group, each with at least two home games means two thirds of the games will involve home advantage.

Assuming that the big countries all get a city (which I'd expect), this will help get all the big nations to the knockout phase, which will help boost global audiences. Coincidence?
 
Jurgen the German said:
But why change it in the first place? What is wrong with the format as it currently exists?

I'm all for change if it's for a good reason, but not just for the sake of it.

Ok not too many people can afford to follow a team throughout an entire tournament, but some may take the decision to book 10 days off work to follow the their team (assuming they get there of course) for the knockout stages. Instead of having a base in one country, they have to travel across Europe to follow their country. What's the point?

We all know the airlines will bump up the prices. I wonder if UEFA have some lucrative deal with one of the airlines in the pipeline maybe? Wouldn't surprise me.
Click to expand...

Nothing in particular wrong with the format as it is, but football has grown immensely (particularly financially) over the last 20 years by not just standing still and being happy with the status quo. You might not be happy with that development, but that's more a question of motivation than application.

If the biggest teams do get 2 home games a lot of fans will be able to take 10 days off work and follow their team in their own capital. And again, if the flights are relatively short then trains will be an alternative to flights as well. The trips won't be that much longer than the travels internally in single countries hosting events.

jts1882 said:
So that is potentially 12 "host countries" for six groups (assuming they stick to 4 team groups). Two hosts per group, each with at least two home games means two thirds of the games will involve home advantage.

Assuming that the big countries all get a city (which I'd expect), this will help get all the big nations to the knockout phase, which will help boost global audiences. Coincidence?
Click to expand...

I'm assuming UEFA are doing this to increase the interest and thus the audience and income from these tournaments. I don't think giving several teams home advantage to thus get more big teams through the group stages is part of it though. Coincidences happen. Quite frequently.

If this was some part of an overall money making scheme for UEFA why then allow Polan and Ukraine to co-host, or Switzerland and Austria?

I'm generally less than convinced by conspiracy theories though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back