BOF Posted December 7, 2012 Moderator Share Posted December 7, 2012 I think it's a stupid idea. It's a lazy solution to a problem they themselves caused by expanding the finals tournament to include more than 50% of their own members. That's not a finals tournament. It's a glorified qualification campaign. Having it across Europe completely removes the atmosphere of an event that the finals should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted December 7, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted December 7, 2012 But surely the group of people who wanted to see every game their team played (maybe a few thousand people from each of half a dozen countries) will be massively outweighed by the group of people who might just get a game on their doorstep? It's not like people will only lose out of this, is it? That's beside the point. My point was it's ok for us to give a shit either way. It doesn't matter that we'll all just watch it on the telly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shillzz Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Initially thought it was a good idea as it'll give more people a chance to see one of the games, but have since decided that it's not really within the spirit of international tournaments. There won't be the fan parks etc that make up the atmosphere of a good tournament. It won't be an event anymore, just a series of international football matches. That said, if England play in England at any point (assuming they qualify), then I'll go all out to get tickets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFCforever1991 Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Edit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 At first I was against the idea. But thinking about it more, I think it has some merit. Croke Park would be a fantastic site to hold a Euro match. As would the biggest stadiums in Croatia, Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland, Romania, etc. With 24 teams, it's a tall order for any host nation...I think it should be tried once, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 there was a good piece on this by martin samuel in the mail yesterday, he's saying that this has all come about because Platini had put his weight behind a Turkish bid before the bidding process had even closed so the other hopefuls lost interest, Turkey have then decided to put all their efforts in to an olympic bid instead so basically Platini opened his big gob and has put everyone off bidding for the euros and this is the last resort he also said that TV rights are way down for 2016 qualification because of the number of dead rubbers / ease of qualification Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFC_Hitz Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 The Turks wanted both of them. Euros and the Olympics and the IOC said '**** off' A euros over here would have got the most support but the money was in the Olympic bid to really get Turkey's place on the map. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voinjama Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 I think it's a stupid idea. It's a lazy solution to a problem they themselves caused by expanding the finals tournament to include more than 50% of their own members. That's not a finals tournament. It's a glorified qualification campaign. Having it across Europe completely removes the atmosphere of an event that the finals should be. Yep, it will be too similar to the qualifying campaign. I think Uefa should go back to 16 teams, but they won't. I think between 2000 and 2012, the Euros were better, but I guess we may be ging back to th pre 2000 days of the world cup being a better tournament. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wainy316 Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 As a one off I'm fine with it. Will give cities of smaller countries with only 1 or 2 good stadiums a chance they'd never have otherwise had. Not sure how they will schedule it, but could be pricey and difficult as a traveling fan though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 but is the cost is probably cheaper and quicker flying London to Brussels, Copenhagen or Belgrade than the locations in the 2002, 2010, 2014 and 2018 World Cups Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Pangloss Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 Well prices will naturally rise during the tournament period... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rev Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 Yeah, but Zatman is basically right. England played four games in South Africa in 2010, the first game was in Rustenburg (75 miles north west of Johannesburg) they then had six days to make a 950 mile trip to Cape Town, followed by five days to make a 500 mile trip to Port Elizabeth and then three days to arrange either a 400 mile trip to Bloemfontein or a 700 mile trip back to Rustenburg depending where the team finished in the group. There is no national rail network in South Africa, the road network is shite and you cant exactly take your own car out there so you are kinda forced to fly everywhere, and England had to do 2000 miles in two weeks after they had arrived in Jo'burg to begin with. They will have to cover similar distances in Brazil in 2014 and again be unable to rely on road or rail, so a pan European tournament isnt actually any worse than what fans are already being asked to do if they want to follow a team around, and given that Europe has got transcontinental road and rail networks and open borders across the vast majority of the continent, getting about will be much much easier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Pangloss Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 But this is a euro's not a world cup, right? Yes this bonkers idea isn't worse than a typical world cup nowadays but surely a lot worse than a typical euros. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voinjama Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 With regards to the travelling distances in world cups, whenever the world cup is outside Europe there is always huge distances. USA 94, Mexico 86 etc. I can't remember the source but I read the Italian team in world cup 94 flew over 5000 miles for the 7 games they played in that tournament. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 deleted post! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Sure I heard a while back that in the next WC (Brazil) some teams based in the south of the country will be playing in temperatures close to 0 whilst those based north will be nearer 30. Could be a bit of a problem when the southern based teams fly north in the latter stages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted December 12, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted December 12, 2012 With regards to the travelling distances in world cups, whenever the world cup is outside Europe there is always huge distances. USA 94, Mexico 86 etc. I can't remember the source but I read the Italian team in world cup 94 flew over 5000 miles for the 7 games they played in that tournament. Italy games in USA 94 Group Stage) v Ireland: East Rutherford, NJ v Norway: East Rutherford, NJ (0 miles) v Mexico: Washington, DC (230 miles from previous game & overall) v Nigeria: Foxboro[ugh], MA (428 miles from previous game, 758 miles overall) v Spain: Foxboro[ugh], MA (0 miles from previous game, 758 miles overall) v Bulgaria: East Rutherford, NJ (204 miles from previous game, 962 miles overall) v Brazil: Pasadena, CA (2,776 miles from previous game, 3738 miles overall) The groups were reasonably well regionalized (could have been done better, but...) A & B: Pontiac, MI; Pasadena, CA; Stanford, CA C & D: Chicago; Dallas; Foxboro[ugh], MA E & F: E. Rutherford, NJ; Washington, DC; Orlando I'd have swapped Dallas and Pontiac, and maybe have staged the final in Chicago instead of LA (which would have worked better for TV timing, too). The worst group stage, travelwise, was probably for Romania: Pasadena-Pontiac-Pasadena: 4554 miles total (the Swiss had Pontiac-Pontiac-Stanford for 2435 miles; the USA's Pontiac-Pasadena-Stanford comes in at 2646; and Colombia's Pasadena-Pasadena-Stanford was 359 miles!). I can think of teams in the NCAA basketball tournament who travel greater distances, on extremely short notice, for six games than did Italy for seven (though to be fair, each weekend has the games in the same location). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Pangloss Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Wow they had a game in New Jersey, I feel sorry for those fans having to travel there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 lost as well in New Jersey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts