# European Championships in London?



## LucianPopa1000 (Jul 5, 2011)

London could host a world cup ffs :nuts:,theyre more capable than Qatar.Do the RFU allow football on Twickenham?


----------



## SE9 (Apr 26, 2005)

LucianPopa1000 said:


> London could host a world cup ffs :nuts:,theyre more capable than Qatar.Do the RFU allow football on Twickenham?


The RFU would agree to negotiate a deal to allow Twickenham to host football, if a major tournament bid is put forward.


----------



## Blackpool88 (Nov 15, 2007)

Leedsrule said:


> What? More footballing heritage? I doubt it, and it dosen't really matter anyway, london has enough footballing heritage. Better stadiums? I doubt it. Old trafford is not as good as Wembley, and the Olympic Stadium and the Emirates are 2 of the most modern stadioums in England. More variety? I don't know what you mean by this- but it's bigger, sure. The whole point of this idea was to create a vibrant tournament atmoshere in one city, with all the fans in a small area. And Safer? How? London has better infastructure and it can cope with the visitors, as proven by the Olympics.


Footballing Heritage - This is the region in which the football league first began - founding members: Accrington, Aston Villa, Blackburn Rovers, Bolton Wanderers, Burnley, Derby County, Everton, Notts County, Preston North End, Stoke F.C, West Bromwich Albion and Wolverhampton Wanderers.

Footballing Heritage continued: European Cups - Liverpool = 5 United = 3 Nottingham Forest = 2 Aston Villa = 1.... London? Chelsea = 1 (the least popular winners in history playing the worst brand of football)

English League - United and Liverpool alone = 37.

Face it - London has hardly any international footballing heritage compared to the rest aside from having the national stadium


Better Stadiums - I guarantee that any sane footballing fan would prefer to play at Anfield or Old Trafford over the Emirates, Twickenham or the Olympic Stadium. Even the next level of Northern grounds are much more famous than the next level of London Grounds ie. St James' Park, Elland Road, Goodison, Villa Park > Stamford Bridge & Boelyn Ground. Football fans like history not sterile new build or even non-footballing grounds. I'd rather visit historic footballing stadiums than an athletics stadium and I'm sure most football fans would agree. The only one in London that any football fan would like to visit ahead of Anfield and Old Trafford is Wembley, Emirates is also a good stadium but again has no history. In addition we also have Etihad, The City Ground, Hillsbrough etc. 

More Variety - Use of more huge historic stadiums in a number of different cities allowing the visitor to experience more of the UK. (I take your point about this being interesting purely as a concept as I mentioned in my original post)

Safer - As you've had it spelt out to you, you can't have that many fans in the same city, I don't know if you've ever travelled to an international tournament (your naivity suggests not) but that will be a blood bath. It's proven time and again that just having two sets of opposition fans in the same city is problematic. And don't kid yourself - I guarantee they would all congregate and drink in central London, this is a recipe for disaster.

Conclusion - England + Wembley & Emirates = Best bid in world football.


----------



## Good Karma (Mar 22, 2011)

^^ I'm not sure why you posted that, maybe you should start a seperate thread if you feel so strongly.

Naturally an England bid would be the strongest, i personally think England shouldve got the World Cup in 2018 (FIFA jerks thought otherwise).This thread is more like a fantasy idea for example if it were allowed for one city to host the Euros, London would be the only City in Europe let alone England with a chance. I think you totally misunderstood the thread.


----------



## Leedsrule (Apr 6, 2010)

Blackpool88 said:


> Footballing Heritage - This is the region in which the football league first began - founding members: Accrington, Aston Villa, Blackburn Rovers, Bolton Wanderers, Burnley, Derby County, Everton, Notts County, Preston North End, Stoke F.C, West Bromwich Albion and Wolverhampton Wanderers.
> 
> Footballing Heritage continued: European Cups - Liverpool = 5 United = 3 Nottingham Forest = 2 Aston Villa = 1.... London? Chelsea = 1 (the least popular winners in history playing the worst brand of football)
> 
> ...



You are crazy. Its not all about heritage you know, and I still dont think the north have the most heritage. the FA cup has (almost) always been held in the south, the england football team has always played in the south, london has more teams than liverpool or united, so they have more fans to aim at than chelsea or arsenal or spurs for example. Therefore United and liverpool can acheve higher gates, which means more income, which means better players, which means more success. Also, (Massive steriotype alert) the people in the north were poorer than those in the south so football for 5p would be their sort of entertainment, whilst we played bowls or cricket or croquet. The teams in the south still have plenty of heritage (And btw I wouldnt consider birmingham in the north), more than most countries alone do. 




> Better Stadiums - I guarantee that any sane footballing fan would prefer to play at Anfield or Old Trafford over the Emirates, Twickenham or the Olympic Stadium. Even the next level of Northern grounds are much more famous than the next level of London Grounds ie. St James' Park, Elland Road, Goodison, Villa Park > Stamford Bridge & Boelyn Ground. Football fans like history not sterile new build or even non-footballing grounds. I'd rather visit historic footballing stadiums than an athletics stadium and I'm sure most football fans would agree. The only one in London that any football fan would like to visit ahead of Anfield and Old Trafford is Wembley, Emirates is also a good stadium but again has no history. In addition we also have Etihad, The City Ground, Hillsbrough etc.


So you define a good stadium by the amount of people who play there??? In fact, if you asked a load of football fans which stadium they want to play at 70% or so will say Wembley. 

Highbury, stamford bridge, Wembley and Crystal Palce all have tons of history and heritage, and that dosent make a stadium good either. Elland Road is falling apart, Villa park is empty 90% of games, Goodison is traditional but outdated now, And St James park my have history but not much of it's left. Emirates may not have history but highbury certainly did- itll be the same story when liverpool move out of anfield. OT is horrible stadium, theres no heritage left in that- it's just built purly for capacity, adding on seats wherever there's space. Ethihad is nice, granted, city ground is no better than the valley or selhurst park and hillsborough is ok but hardly a 'brilliant stadium' atm. 



> More Variety - Use of more huge historic stadiums in a number of different cities allowing the visitor to experience more of the UK. (I take your point about this being interesting purely as a concept as I mentioned in my original post)


Then why not hold it around all of england? the idea of this was so everyone is in one space, one city.



> Safer - As you've had it spelt out to you, you can't have that many fans in the same city, I don't know if you've ever travelled to an international tournament (your naivity suggests not) but that will be a blood bath. It's proven time and again that just having two sets of opposition fans in the same city is problematic. And don't kid yourself - I guarantee they would all congregate and drink in central London, this is a recipe for disaster


Well I assume you didnt go to the olympics? Millions moving around london, but the transport was fine. There are enough hotels in london, and fans could stay in the surrounding towns and cities as well if there wasn't space. I dont think international fans are as violent as club fans, no massive rivalries so I think you are being completely over the top about a "blood bath" or whatever you think will happen. Im sure they'd be fine, london has the capacity to cope with extra visitors, and remember only 2 or 3 games a day will be held. Thats less supporters travelling around than during a normal saturday. 


And like good karma said, at the end of the day this was just an idea- obviously it's nothing serious. I know i havent helped by replying to it but your ignorance just annoys me so i cant help it.


----------



## Blackpool88 (Nov 15, 2007)

Good Karma said:


> ^^ I'm not sure why you posted that, maybe you should start a seperate thread if you feel so strongly.
> 
> Naturally an England bid would be the strongest, i personally think England shouldve got the World Cup in 2018 (FIFA jerks thought otherwise).This thread is more like a fantasy idea for example if it were allowed for one city to host the Euros, London would be the only City in Europe let alone England with a chance. I think you totally misunderstood the thread.


In response to comments like this;

_"If you have to cut 40 odd stadiums down to 10 or 11, why not just pick the 10 or 11 in London rather than all over the place?"

"Trust me, ive been everywhere following my local team, once you've passed Luton it all gets a bit depressing. And you would only be going to other cities to watch either sit or good games anyway. If they are good, wouldnt it be better to have them in your city and if they are bad then why would you want to travel to them?"_

I'm pointing out that a better tournament could be held in the so called depressing parts north of Luton. And the points I made were directly in response to questions asked...


----------



## Leedsrule (Apr 6, 2010)

^^ Can you Quote those?


----------



## Blackpool88 (Nov 15, 2007)

Leedsrule said:


> You are crazy. Its not all about heritage you know, and I still dont think the north have the most heritage. the FA cup has (almost) always been held in the south, the england football team has always played in the south, london has more teams than liverpool or united, so they have more fans to aim at than chelsea or arsenal or spurs for example. Therefore United and liverpool can acheve higher gates, which means more income, which means better players, which means more success. Also, (Massive steriotype alert) the people in the north were poorer than those in the south so football for 5p would be their sort of entertainment, whilst we played bowls or cricket or croquet. The teams in the south still have plenty of heritage (And btw I wouldnt consider birmingham in the north), more than most countries alone do.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't even know where to start with that lot! 



Leedsrule said:


> @ alexandru.mircea
> 
> 
> It just feels like if we held a tournament in all of England, there would be so many good stadiums wasted. If you have to cut 40 odd stadiums down to 10 or 11, why not just pick the 10 or 11 in London rather than all over the place?
> ...


These were the bits I took exception to.


----------



## Leedsrule (Apr 6, 2010)

Blackpool88 said:


> These were the bits I took exception to.


Haha, I dont even remember writing that :L I still stand by the first bit, if we're going to pick 10 or 12 stadiums to use in a euro's from around england, why not just pick the 10 or 12 in London? But the second bit, I still stand by, but I understand why you're unhappy


----------



## Blackpool88 (Nov 15, 2007)

Leedsrule said:


> Haha, I dont even remember writing that :L I still stand by the first bit, if we're going to pick 10 or 12 stadiums to use in a euro's from around england, why not just pick the 10 or 12 in London? But the second bit, I still stand by, but I understand why you're unhappy


Fair enough, no worries - I'll let you get back on with your thread.


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

Blackpool88 said:


> Conclusion - England + Wembley & Emirates = Best bid in world football.


it would be, in the same way that the premier league is the best in the world - best if you don't actually look outside England.

Still, all rather irrelevant anyway. Yes, London could theoretically host a EURO on its own, but it would be a bit of a nightmare to try.


----------



## vvumgaay (Mar 21, 2013)

what I think it is the most important issue: it might be a tournament with low attendances.


----------



## Blackpool88 (Nov 15, 2007)

Rev Stickleback said:


> it would be, in the same way that the premier league is the best in the world - best if you don't actually look outside England.
> 
> Still, all rather irrelevant anyway. Yes, London could theoretically host a EURO on its own, but it would be a bit of a nightmare to try.


I don't know about that - I don't know of any other country in the world where there is such a density of big stadiums in such a small area - there are quite a lot of teams in the lower divisions who have 30,000 + seater stadiums let alone the premiership. 

Anyway let's get the thread back on topic - I think one of the key differences with the Olympics is the demographic of the average football fan. I think having it in Qatar will actually price most trouble makers out of the equasion but hosting it in a European city within driving distance of most of Europe you can't deny that is the biggest challenge in this hypothetical debate. Dutch/English/German/Polish/Ukranian/Croatians/Italians all drinking in Central London will need an almighty police effort - significantly more than during the riots.


----------



## Leedsrule (Apr 6, 2010)

vvumgaay said:


> what I think it is the most important issue: it might be a tournament with low attendances


I think they could fill most of a 30k stadium for a game between Moldova and Ireland. If it was priced right, I think they could sell out every game.

I think attedances would be less of an issue than in the qatar wc.


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

Leedsrule said:


> I think attedances would be less of an issue than in the qatar wc.


Definitely.

The Qatar would cup will need a huge number of overseas visitors to fill the stadiums, yet has no provision at all for housing those visitors.

A London tournament would attract fans from across the country.

Crowds for EURO 96 weren't that great in some places, but some of that was down to corporate no-shows, and the fact that it was much more of a pain to apply for tickets back then.

These days, with the internet, millions can apply easily for multiple games. 

That Latvia v Slovenia could be a fixture isn't the issue it was in the past, as a huge number of tickets these days are sold before the draw has even been made.

Probably the only other region capable of doing a tournament in a similar sized area would by the Westphalia region of Germany.

Dortmund - Signal Iduna Park	81 264 
Gelsenkirchen - Veltins Arena	61 027 
Dusseldorf - Esprit Arena	54 600 
M'Gladbach - Borussia Park	53 148
Cologne - Rhein Energy Stadion	50 997 
Uerdingen - Grotenburg Stadium	34 500
Aachen - New Tivoli	32 900 
Bochum - rewirpowerSTADION	32 645
Duisburg - Schauinsland-Reisen-Arena	31 000 
Leverkusen - BayArena	30 210
Bielefeld - SchücoArena	28 008


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

Blackpool88 said:


> Face it - London has hardly any international footballing heritage compared to the rest aside from having the national stadium


That's simply wrong. London sides won European competitions on 9 different occasions. Three London clubs compete regularly in Europe. That is a lot more than hardly any heritage.


----------



## Blackpool88 (Nov 15, 2007)

Rev Stickleback said:


> Definitely.
> 
> The Qatar would cup will need a huge number of overseas visitors to fill the stadiums, yet has no provision at all for housing those visitors.
> 
> ...


Yeah that is a really strong region, are there any other regions in the world with a similar density of large stadia in such small areas?



flierfy said:


> That's simply wrong. London sides won European competitions on 9 different occasions. Three London clubs compete regularly in Europe. That is a lot more than hardly any heritage.


Well clearly UEFA and Cup winners' cups don't hold as much weight but I suppose it is sightly more than hardly any.


----------



## chibimatty (Oct 6, 2010)

Blackpool88 said:


> Yeah that is a really strong region, are there any other regions in the world with a similar density of large stadia in such small areas?


There are, but you'll find they are all in the USA. When looking at stadia alone, California, Texas and Florida could all host the world cup on their own, with the odd renovation here and there.
If you include 30,000 capacity grounds, or baseball stadia, then the list of states gets even bigger.

Other than that, I can think of the greater area around Mexico City, and maybe at a pinch, Buenos Aires



vvumgaay said:


> what I think it is the most important issue: it might be a tournament with low attendances.


No, attendances won't be a problem at all, even for the smallest fixture. Unfortunately, though I like this idea; if this tournament happened in the real world, the major problem would be pan-European hooliganism.


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

Blackpool88 said:


> Well clearly UEFA and Cup winners' cups don't hold as much weight but I suppose it is sightly more than hardly any.


Don't hold much weight? Let me guess, you are born in 1988 and you haven't seen any football before 1993 if you have seen any football at all. You are completely brainwashed by playing Fifa on XBox and watching Premier and Champions League on BSkyB and you consequently don't recognise any football beyond that.


----------



## Blackpool88 (Nov 15, 2007)

flierfy said:


> Don't hold much weight? Let me guess, you are born in 1988 and you haven't seen any football before 1993 if you have seen any football at all. You are completely brainwashed by playing Fifa on XBox and watching Premier and Champions League on BSkyB and you consequently don't recognise any football beyond that.


Hehe I don't play computer games I'm afraid, I could debate this further but I think we should leave it here in the interest of the thread I've already taken it off course once. Have a nice day.


----------



## Leedsrule (Apr 6, 2010)

Imagine UEFA realised the Euro 2020 idea is shite and decided to award the Euro's to London instead, this is how they'd organise it:

Venues

*Wembley Stadium*
Capacity: 90,000
Location: Wembley
Year Built: 2007

*Twickenham Stadium*
Capacity: 82,000
Location: Richmond upon Thames
Year Built: 1909

*Olympic Stadium*
Capacity: 62,000
Location: Stratford
Year Built: 2011
Temporarily expanded from the 54,000 it would be when West Ham use it by uncovering seats at both ends.

*Emirates Stadium*
Capacity: 60,000
Location: Islington
Year Built: 2006

*Stamford Bridge*
Capacity: 41,838
Location: Fulham
Year Built: 1877

*New Tottenham Stadium*
Capacity: 56,250
Location: Tottenham
Year Built: 2016

*The New Den *
Upgraded Capacity: 32,500
Location: South Bermondsey
Year Built: 1992
Expanded by extending Main Stand and filling in the corners.

*The Valley *
Upgraded Capacity: 40,000
Location: Charlton
Year Built: 1919

*Craven Cottage *
Upgraded Capacity: 30,500
Location: Fulham
Year Built: 1896
As well as the new Riverside stand, both ends would be improved to meet UEFA standards and the number of pillars in the main stand reduced to improve views. 

*New Crystal Palace Stadium *
Capacity: 40,000
Location: Crystal Palace
Year Built: 2019

*New QPR Stadium *
Capacity: 45,000
Location: White City
Year Built: 2016

_Back up stadium:_

*Vicarage Road *
Upgraded Capacity: 30,000
Location: Watford
Year Built: 2016
Expanded primarily by building a new main stand.











Matches

Imagining these teams qualified: England, France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Scotland, Romania, Ireland, Switzerland, Ukraine, Turkey, Denmark, Poland, Czech Republic, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Austria, Belgium, Portugal, Montenegro, Greece, Norway, Russia, Sweden

_Group A_
England vs Sweden- Wembley Stadium
Russia vs Romania- Emirates Stadium 
Romania vs England- Olympic Stadium
Russia vs Sweden- New Crystal Palace Stadium
England vs Russia- Wembley Stadium
Sweden vs Romania- Olympic Stadium
_Group B_
Ireland vs Spain- Twickenham Stadium
Scotland vs Ukraine- New Crystal Palace Stadium
Ireland vs Scotland- Emirates Stadium
Ukraine vs Spain- New QPR Stadium
Spain vs Scotland- Olympic Stadium
Ireland vs Ukraine- New Tottenham Stadium 
_Group C_
Turkey vs Germany- Twickenham Stadium
Switzerland vs Bulgaria- Craven Cottage
Germany vs Bulgaria- New Tottenham Stadium
Switzerland vs Turkey- The Valley
Germany vs Switzerland- New QPR Stadium
Bulgaria vs Turkey- Craven Cottage
_Group D_
Norway vs Montenegro- The Valley 
France vs Greece- New Tottenham Stadium 
Greece vs Montenegro- Craven Cottage
Norway vs France- New Crystal Palace Stadium
Montenegro vs France- Stamford Bridge
Greece vs Norway- The New Den
_Group E_
Portugal vs Austria- New QPR Stadium
Belgium vs Denmark- The New Den
Austria vs Denmark- The Valley
Portugal vs Belgium- Olympic Stadium
Belgium vs Austria- The Valley
Denmark vs Portugal- Twickenham Stadium
_Group F_
Italy vs Poland- New Tottenham Stadium
Czech Republic vs Bosnia and Herzegovina- Craven Cottage
Bosnia and Herzegovina vs Italy- Stamford Bridge
Czech Republic vs Poland- The New Den
Bosnia and Herzegovina vs Poland- New Crystal Palace Stadium
Italy vs Czech Republic- Emirates Stadium

Round of 16 venues:
Twickenham Stadium
New QPR Stadium
Wembley Stadium x2
The New Den
Stamford Bridge x2
New Crystal Palace Stadium

Quarter Final venues:
Twickenham Stadium
Olympic Stadium
Emirates Stadium
New Tottenham Stadium 

Semi Final venues:
Wembley Stadium x2

Final venues:
3rd place final- Emirates Stadium
Final- Wembley Stadium


----------



## bongo-anders (Oct 26, 2008)

I wouldn't be surprised if Denmark and Portugal would meet up yet again. :lol:

But if I had to change anything it would be a better distribution of the larger stadiums in all groups, group A and B seems to have them all and group E got no one. 
Norway and Montenegro have no stadium allocated for their match so they could get one of the big stadiums.


----------



## Leedsrule (Apr 6, 2010)

bongo-anders said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if Denmark and Portugal would meet up yet again. :lol:
> 
> But if I had to change anything it would be a better distribution of the larger stadiums in all groups, group A and B seems to have them all and group E got no one.
> Norway and Montenegro have no stadium allocated for their match so they could get one of the big stadiums.


Ah yes, I didn't notice that, edited now. At the moment the stadiums hold these number of games:
Wembley- 7
Twickenham- 5 
Olympic- 5 
Emirates- 5 
New Spurs- 5
Stamford Bridge- 4
New QPR- 4
New Crystal Palace- 5 
The Valley- 4
Craven Cottage- 4
The Den- 4


----------



## bongo-anders (Oct 26, 2008)

now I´m just nitpicking but seing that both West Ham´s, QPR, Crystal Palace and Tottenham´s new stadiums are included are Chelsea not working on their own 60.000´ish stadium.

If its located on another site then Stamford Bridge could be kept for this tournament and the same could said about Upton Park Park (Boleyn Ground) both replacing the New New Den and Craven Cottage.


----------



## GEwinnen (Mar 3, 2006)

@leeds

Wake up, dude, this will never happen! 200,000 (or more) fans of the participating 24 countries at the same time in just one city? Even though it's the biggest city in Europe, they couldn't handle this!


----------



## Leedsrule (Apr 6, 2010)

GEwinnen said:


> @leeds
> 
> Wake up, dude, this will never happen! 200,000 (or more) fans of the participating 24 countries at the same time in just one city? Even though it's the biggest city in Europe, they couldn't handle this!


Hahaha i'm dreaming! Obviously it's not going to happen, you think the FA look on here?! Despite the fact it will never happen, i still believe that London has a good enough infrastructure to hold the tournament alone. I mean it held the Olympics more than easily, and during the euro's there would only be 2 or 3 games per day, less than an average saturday in London. There are enough hotels and training facilities too. The problems such as seggrigating fans are minor in comparison to some of the problems other euro bids have faced.


----------



## alexandru.mircea (May 18, 2011)

You never know, this might just happen. As long as everyone involved benefits, why not.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

GEwinnen said:


> @leeds
> 
> Wake up, dude, this will never happen! 200,000 (or more) fans of the participating 24 countries at the same time in just one city? Even though it's the biggest city in Europe, they couldn't handle this!


Doha 2022 is happening apparently. London is six time the size and would have to host 8 fewer teams! 

And actually, worth pointing out that the Olympic Park handled nearly 300,000 people on its busiest days last Summer.

London could cope with this; though of course it would never bid and never be awarded it! :lol: It's an interesting hypothetical.


----------



## GEwinnen (Mar 3, 2006)

RobH said:


> Doha 2022 is happening apparently. London is six time the size and would have to host 8 fewer teams!
> 
> And actually, worth pointing out that the Olympic Park handled nearly 300,000 people on its busiest days last Summer.
> 
> London could cope with this; though of course it would never bid and never be awarded it! :lol: It's an interesting hypothetical.


I guess a Euro 2020 in London would attract many more fans than a WC in Qatar! 
The population in a 1000km-circle around London is (estimated) 200,000,000 ppl , they could reach London by car in a day or in 2hrs by plane!

btw, you can't compare the guests of Olympic Games with football fans)


----------

