# EUROPE - UEFA EURO 2020



## timmy- brissy

Turkey - Would be interested in this.

Serbia - Bosnia - Crotia - Would be my vote, Crotia is a great country from what i visited and Serbia and Croatia actually have great football teams.

I also like the other eastern European bids, i don't mind honestly.


----------



## JimB

sticky91 said:


> There is no way that Ireland will bid for this with the financial problems in the country. Scotland and Wales discussed bidding for Euro 2016 but decided not to because of the recession. They could use these stadiums in a bid for Euro 2020:
> 
> GLASGOW:
> Hampden- 50000
> Celtic Park- 60000 OR Ibrox- 50000 (OR both??????)
> 
> EDINBURGH:
> Murrayfield- 67000
> Tynecastle OR Easter Road- Expanded to 30000
> 
> ABERDEEN:
> New Aberdeen stadium - 30000
> 
> DUNDEE:
> New Dundee stadium - 30000*
> 
> *INVERNESS:
> New Inverness stadium - 30000**
> 
> *reduced to more sensible capacity after tournament
> 
> 
> CARDIFF:
> Millennium Stadium- 73000
> Cardiff City Stadium- Expanded to 30000
> 
> SWANSEA:
> Liberty Stadium- Expanded to 30000
> 
> LLANELLI:
> Parc y Scarlets- Expanded to 30000


I love the location of the Inverness Cale stadium and the fact that you can see right into it as you come over the Kessock bridge from the Black Isle.


----------



## lwa

sticky91 said:


> There is no way that Ireland will bid for this with the financial problems in the country. Scotland and Wales discussed bidding for Euro 2016 but decided not to because of the recession. They could use these stadiums in a bid for Euro 2020:
> 
> GLASGOW:
> Hampden- 50000
> Celtic Park- 60000 OR Ibrox- 50000 (OR both??????)
> 
> EDINBURGH:
> Murrayfield- 67000
> Tynecastle OR Easter Road- Expanded to 30000
> 
> ABERDEEN:
> New Aberdeen stadium - 30000
> 
> DUNDEE:
> New Dundee stadium - 30000*
> 
> INVERNESS:
> New Inverness stadium - 30000*
> 
> *reduced to more sensible capacity after tournament
> 
> 
> CARDIFF:
> Millennium Stadium- 73000
> Cardiff City Stadium- Expanded to 30000
> 
> SWANSEA:
> Liberty Stadium- Expanded to 30000
> 
> LLANELLI:
> Parc y Scarlets- Expanded to 30000




Why not Ireland?

the thing that blew Euro 2008 was the joke that was the Irish half of the bid. They promised 4 grounds, but couldn't garuntee any.


That has changed though - the GAA would probably be open to the use of Croker, they now have a proper ground at Lansdowne road (both in place) - and I think they could possibly bring Thommond Park up to standard with temporary seating? That isn't going to cost them much


Or failing that, after Qatar's bid (6 grounds in Doha - does that open the door for Scotland to use all 3 Glasgow grounds?) Scotland could possibly just about manage to stage it solo.

Using:

the grounds listed (7 - although i'd chose Easter road, or David Murrays proposal at Edinburgh Park)

plus temporary expansions to Rugby Park, and either Pittodrie (if possible - obviously the ground would then be knocked down post tournament) or McDiarmid Park.

Would also like to see the oppertunity used to re-do Hampden properly - Ideally bringing capacity to approx. 65-70 K, but at least keeping it at current size, but closer to pitch.


----------



## cornelinho

hungary -romania would be lovely :X

hungary :

Budapest - 66k
Debrecen - 44k 
Győr - 33k
Székesfehérvár - 33k

romania:

bucharest - lia manoliu 55k
- steaua 35k
timisoara - 44k
cluj - 31k
unknown - 31k


----------



## potiz81

gezza said:


> I hear the Faroe Islands is lining up a bid.


LOL. What's next? Spinalonga or Myconos to bid?


----------



## WFInsider

Turkey 90%


----------



## Starscraper

Maybe London could mount a solo bid for Euro 2020, using:

Wembley
Twickenham
Emirates
New White Hart Lane
Olympic Stadium
New Chelsea ground
Selhurst Park expanded
The Valley expanded

Makes more sense than Qatar 2022.


----------



## Mr.Underground

WFInsider said:


> Turkey 90%


It would be a nice choice. Very nice and very appreciate in Italy too.

I hope no in Scotland.


----------



## endrity

It's probably going to be Turkey, and honestly they deserve it. They are a growing market and economy. By 2020 their high speed rail network should be in place, making it possible for fans to transfer easily between cities. There will not be a risk of white elephants as most turkish cities are already in the process of planning new stadia for their teams. 

They lost 2016 by a single vote. Unless one of the big boys (Germany, England, Spain) get involved, which would be surprising, then this is really Turkey's to lose.


----------



## Livno80101

Ex-Yu bid :lol:

I really dont know where one gets such a stupid idea. That will never going to happen. Never. As there is much difference between those three countries, starting with political instability, recent war. Then, there are problems in FAs of all three countries, Bosnian FA is going to be suspended in March, if they dont make some changes in statue (and they wont, as demented people are in charge of FA). Then, major problem is financial side. Croatia has external debt of more than € 40B, growth of number of umemployed people is increasing rapidly, as like as in other two countries. And, last, UEFA or any serious organization wont allow organizing competition of such a importance in THREE countries (we have seen problems in Asian Cup 2007, held in FOUR countries).

So, this bid will never become reality.

And, what user Spicy said, there was story about Croatia / Slovenia / North Italy to bid. And it is just for one big ROFL.



Id like to see it in Turkey, as their love and passion for football is just stunning. And they do have great fans.


----------



## crazyalex

England wont host again because England already have big stadium

How many Turkey fail euro bids?


----------



## koolio

I guess unless Platini intervenes again, Turkey is the front runner to host, right? They deserve it too. Should have held one long time ago.


----------



## Geography

Why does Turkey deserve it?


----------



## chibimatty

I'd love to visit a Czech & Slovak tournament! I wonder if the Scots could host it themselves?

Thought: wonder if we'd ever see a Baltic tournament? (Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania)



Starscraper said:


> Maybe London could mount a solo bid using:
> Wembley
> Twickenham
> Emirates
> New White Hart Lane
> Olympic Stadium
> New Chelsea ground
> Selhurst Park expanded
> The Valley expanded


Actually, that would be pretty cool!


----------



## fanUltras

Turkey 100% !


----------



## Maartendev

Netherlands would be able to do it also, but then without the support of Belgium. 
Turkey would be also a fine candidate for it


----------



## bujdoso CH

I would love to see EC 2020 in Hungary&Romania, but I think too, that this time Turkey will be the winner. I just hope, that they will chose really the best bid, and not the most $ one...


----------



## MS20

Its down to Turkey and Italy I think. It'd be crazy to suggest otherwise. 

bujdoso - The thing is, any bid in Europe is a good bid. Hungary & Romania, Italy, Turkey etc all make sense. Europe knows how to put on a great show; Austria and Switzerland showed that a cumulative population of 20 million is enough to host a fantastic tournament. Fans always travel around Europe, so you cant really lose. 

For me, European Champ bids need to be about developing infrastructure. Italy is crying out for it, Turkey has been more active on that front but certainly a country of that size (and a growing world power) could do with an extensive upgrade in infrastructure and stadia. 

Again, there are no bad bids for Euros, just good and better ones. It is afterall the best football tournament around


----------



## bujdoso CH

Yes you are right, the differences between european bids is minimal. But, if they give always the tournaments to the best developped countrys, other countrys never will close up... But it's clear, that it's hard to find the right balance between top developped countrys, and the others.

In that sense, may the best win!:cheers:


----------



## bujdoso CH

cornelinho said:


> hungary -romania would be lovely :X
> 
> hungary :
> 
> Budapest - 66k
> Debrecen - 44k
> Győr - 33k
> Székesfehérvár - 33k
> 
> romania:
> 
> bucharest - lia manoliu 55k
> - steaua 35k
> timisoara - 44k
> cluj - 31k
> unknown - 31k


How nice that would be 

Where would you place the 4th romanian stadium? Sure, there's Ghencea as a good second option in Bukarest, but what about a 3rd city like for example Constanta? I have no idea about their team, but it would make sense to place a stadium there (sea, tourism is already at high level). 

In Hungary it's more difficult to judge, where they should play. Debrecen has to be, but I doubt, that they will biuld there a 44k arena. They are waiting now for ages for a european standard stadium, plans for a new 21k stadium were presented this year. But I have no idea if this stadium could be upgraded in case of EC 2020. Györ has completed this year a brand new stadium, there are if I'm right 20 and something k places, I don't think that it could be upgraded. Fehérvár has only a new main tribune, so they could demolish the old stands and build new ones for the EC.


----------



## infolex

crazyalex said:


> How many Turkey fail euro bids?


atleast 3.


----------



## www.sercan.de

Yes 3.

2008: Turkey and Greece. "3rd place"
2012: Turkey "4th place"
2016: Turkey "2nd place"


----------



## PaulFCB

I think Romania should bid with Bulgaria if they ever intend to do such a thing that I doubt.
The reasons are simple. Hungary already have lost bids and it's quite clear for them it's not a useful for them as it is for Bulgaria, a country that still has interest for football. What would Hungary do with those stadiums? Plus, our two countries are well close to each other when It comes to close history like that be both joined NATO in 2004, EU in 2007 and we have very similar financial income situations, Bucharest is close to Bulgaria, Sofia isn't that far from Bucharest as Budapest is, we have 0 things in common with Hungary as origins of our people, they are simply just neighbors but nothing in common.
Of course, IMO, it would be a wise decision for either of them to take Serbia as a co-bidder since I don't think Romania should host a competition even in 10 years cause I won't trust it would be a good organization. If there's something Romania could do, is have the Olympic Games in Bucharest, sounds much better.
As for stadiums having only 30k apart from the 2 big ones ( Bucharest and Sofia/Budapest ) stadiums isn't enough anymore, we would need at least 40k for some.
I would say host cities could well be Bucharest with the New Lia Manoliu with small modifications to 63k,. Cluj with the New Moina stadium but extended to 40k, hopefully eliminating the athletics track by digging, Timisoara with a new stadium to be built 40k, Craiova with a 30k new one and eventually a extra for the help in Constanta 30k would do.
But I'm pretty sure we should leave these discussions for 2-3 years later when things would be clear, Romania is just a wikipedia bid for now and it could well be Sci-Fi anyway.


----------



## cornelinho

bujdoso CH said:


> How nice that would be
> 
> Where would you place the 4th romanian stadium? Sure, there's Ghencea as a good second option in Bukarest, but what about a 3rd city like for example Constanta? I have no idea about their team, but it would make sense to place a stadium there (sea, tourism is already at high level).
> 
> In Hungary it's more difficult to judge, where they should play. Debrecen has to be, but I doubt, that they will biuld there a 44k arena. They are waiting now for ages for a european standard stadium, plans for a new 21k stadium were presented this year. But I have no idea if this stadium could be upgraded in case of EC 2020. Györ has completed this year a brand new stadium, there are if I'm right 20 and something k places, I don't think that it could be upgraded. Fehérvár has only a new main tribune, so they could demolish the old stands and build new ones for the EC.


u must be hungarian... constanta would be a good choice but it has no team at the moment... so citys like craviova or brasov would be better... 
as for the hungary part... you the cand make temporary seets like all other stadiums and remove after the tournament... i see this bid as very simple... but its just a dream at the moment...



PaulFCB said:


> I think Romania should bid with Bulgaria if they ever intend to do such a thing that I doubt.
> The reasons are simple. Hungary already have lost bids and it's quite clear for them it's not a useful for them as it is for Bulgaria, a country that still has interest for football. What would Hungary do with those stadiums? Plus, our two countries are well close to each other when It comes to close history like that be both joined NATO in 2004, EU in 2007 and we have very similar financial income situations, Bucharest is close to Bulgaria, Sofia isn't that far from Bucharest as Budapest is, we have 0 things in common with Hungary as origins of our people, they are simply just neighbors but nothing in common.
> Of course, IMO, it would be a wise decision for either of them to take Serbia as a co-bidder since I don't think Romania should host a competition even in 10 years cause I won't trust it would be a good organization. If there's something Romania could do, is have the Olympic Games in Bucharest, sounds much better.
> As for stadiums having only 30k apart from the 2 big ones ( Bucharest and Sofia/Budapest ) stadiums isn't enough anymore, we would need at least 40k for some.
> I would say host cities could well be Bucharest with the New Lia Manoliu with small modifications to 63k,. Cluj with the New Moina stadium but extended to 40k, hopefully eliminating the athletics track by digging, Timisoara with a new stadium to be built 40k, Craiova with a 30k new one and eventually a extra for the help in Constanta 30k would do.
> But I'm pretty sure we should leave these discussions for 2-3 years later when things would be clear, Romania is just a wikipedia bid for now and it could well be Sci-Fi anyway.



your annoying...
were in the world will bucharest get a 80k stadium plus the exrea stadiums arenas and other facilities for the olympics? olympics are more complicated then football events plus the codidates are 5 times more then at an euro
what do we have in commen whit bulgaria? hungary had transilvania fr a long time plus that the biggest minority in romania are hungaryans
the fact that they lost the tournament in the past is irelevant... look at turckey or italy or even england for wc...they did not won but its not because a bad bid... 
hungary has more money better infrastucture and much more thend bulgaria and is the best co-bider we can get.


----------



## Rus 2018

Italy or Serbia\Croatia


----------



## CaliforniaJones

2020: Turkey
2024: Italy
2028: Spain


----------



## Elensar77

%99 Turkey.
Not too much words.


----------



## infolex

Elensar77 said:


> %99 Turkey.
> Not too much words.


Sometimes 1% > 99%


----------



## Axelferis

Italy will win this time around! It is like the tourney of great countries organizing euro has started :lol:


----------



## ensarsever

It's time for Turkey guys.

Or will be interesting Serbia/Croatia/Macedonia


----------



## smokiboy

Serbia-Croatia-Bosnia would be interesting, but maybe a little soon after the war.
So what about Serbia-Bulgaria, or maybe together with Macedonia?


----------



## Gecko1989

Its good to know people have no faith in Croatia/Serbia/Bosnia coming together in 10 years to stage this event lol. Being croatian i would hope that the majority of my people could put aside their differences and bring something great to our reign same goes for the people of serbia and bosnia. 

However the sad fact is that as many good understanding people there are in those 3 countries they are usually overshadowed by the crazy nationalists. But i will say nothing will make me happier than being proved wrong and seeing Croats/Serbs and Bosnians come together.


----------



## Mr.Underground

Rus 2018 said:


> Italy or Serbia\Croatia


Italy will invest on Rome 2020, so will no race for Euro2020. :cheers:

Cornelinho, what do you think about the joint bid Hungary-Czech Republic? I see, infact, more natural a joint bid Romania-Bulgaria and not with Hungary.


----------



## cornelinho

Mr.Underground said:


> Italy will invest on Rome 2020, so will no race for Euro2020. :cheers:
> 
> Cornelinho, what do you think about the joint bid Hungary-Czech Republic? I see, infact, more natural a joint bid Romania-Bulgaria and not with Hungary.


why do you say natural? austria and hungury was more natural then austria and switzerland... but they did it ... i just think that hungary is more prepared to co-host an euro then bulgaia is... 

Hungary-Czech Republic? i don.t know... 

a hungaryan can talk more about this...


----------



## slodziak

2020: Lichtenstein
2024: San Marino
2028: Vatican


----------



## www.sercan.de

Turkey's 2020 bid is "official".
Yesterday the TFF president said on CNBC Turkey, that they already start to work for the 2020 bid.


----------



## Red85

slodziak said:


> 2020: Lichtenstein
> 2024: San Marino
> 2028: Vatican


hmm. I admit they have the money...


----------



## bifdy

parcdesprinces said:


> I don't know why it shouldn't be ?? Since the election process has to be based on bids and evaluation reports... SO, the best bid should win ! (and as far I know there's no rotations policy for the hosts of this competition)
> 
> 
> Look at the "Grande Nation" as ze Germans used to call France :bowtie: : Euro '60, Winter Olympics '68, Euro '84, Winter Olympics '92, World Cup '98, Rugby World Cup 2007, Euro 2016... (+ Winter Olympics 2018 & Summer Olympics 2024 )..... etc
> 
> ------
> 
> 
> 
> Come on, of course you do !
> 
> And a 24-team Euro is not "a consolation prize" but simply a World Cup without Brazil and Argentina !!!
> 
> Anyway..see you in France in 2016 :grouphug: !! I'm pretty sure the atmosphere (from Nice to Lille, inside and outside the stadiums) will be as good as during France '98 and Germany 2006 !


i think unlike the world cup it is just a matter of waiting our turn to host the euro's. i strongly believe that if turkey can present a strong enough bid then they should get it, also italy are due another finals before us, as are spain. eastern europe and scandinavia should get there turn too and maybe germany.

a joint scottish/welsh/english bid would make sense what with nearly half of europe qualifying anyway we could make use of some decent celtic stadiums too.


----------



## Axelferis

You know, don't forget platini got euro for france and now with its italian origin he will do the same for italy bid


----------



## TataMuminka

I'm not an expert but I think UEFA will follow FIFA in trying to enter new markets as, let's face it, the Euro is as much a business deal and opportunity as it is a tournament. UEFA is not an investor but the development and promotion of soccer in countries in the center, east and south of Europe seems a good idea. Also for the game - new stadiums help poorer countries improve their level of playing as they make more people attend the games which results in more money for clubs. 

I can see it in Poland where a new stadium in Poznań is a perfect example of what I've just written. A lot more people come to see the games now and this results in a big improvement in the revenue (even though only the Europa League games and the national team game in Novemeber were sold out) and that can result in new, better players. The best thing is, two more Euro 2012 stadiums are going to be used by clubs and the national trend in building new stadiums has been started. You wouldn't believe how much our sports infrastructure improved since we got the right to host the Euro - pretty much every team in the Ekstraklasa either has a brand new stadium, is building/renovating or has some plans to do so.

I do understand that countries like Italy or Spain want to host such tournaments too - but it really is a chance for less developed (in terms of sports infrastructure) countries to catch up. And that, as I said, is good for the game.

As for the proposed bids, I think Czech Republic&Slovakia and Romania&Hungary/Bulgaria are pretty much safe as the countries are developed enough to handle such a thing. I don't think Euro held in Serbia, Bosnia and Croatia would be a good thing, first because it's three countries so it's kind of impractical and also the Serbian hooligans do not bring a positive image to the bid. I'd be OK with Turkey hosting the tournament since they've tried so many times.


----------



## GrimFadango

Serbia & Kosowo :yes: or at least Serbia & Albania, two beautiful countries and promising football market. It would do great to their billateral relationship.


----------



## TataMuminka

GrimFadango said:


> Serbia & Kosowo :yes:


Is it irony?


----------



## JYDA

Turkey is overdue


----------



## Aikishi

Turkey


----------



## kubura

Serbia & Bosnia UEFA EURO 2020


----------



## PaulFCB

cornelinho said:


> hungary has more money better infrastucture and much more thend bulgaria and is the best co-bider we can get.


 Maybe we should try Moldavia or the Black Sea hno: :lol:


----------



## koynov

Maybe you are right for Hungary, but Bulgaria need from Euro 2020 because we want to develop our Infrastructure just like romanians. Hungary already have good roads, hotels etc.


----------



## www.sercan.de

Axelferis said:


> You know, don't forget platini got euro for france and now with its italian origin he will do the same for italy bid


Nooooo 
But it could be.

So Turkey 2024 . Actually if Turkey do not gets EURO 2020, they wil bid for a WC


----------



## kamadeva

Turkey is the favorite in my books,i wouldn't bid against them in 2020.
Romania should concentrate on 2024,but with whom one might ask;historically our best neighbours have been the serbs(there's a saying that goes sthg like "Romania has 2 friends Serbia and the Black Sea").Serbia is also a fast developing country with a team stronger than many in C&EE(even ours).This is not likely to happen but possible.
The bid with Bulgaria would be okay but we have nothing in common with them.We have a strong developed south,they have a weak developed north,not compatible.A common bid might change that.
Hungary&Romania is prolly the best option.The historycal link of Transilvania to both countries and the big minority of hungarians as well as a large hungarian FDI in Transilvania proves the good working relations.The hungarian motorways will link with A1,A2,A3 motorways in Romania going West-Central-South-South East which will most likely be completed by then.The most prosperous cities in Romania are in the West and South,again a big plus to a bid with Hungary.
Romania atm is ahead in arena and sports facilities development but behind in infrastructure in relations to Hungary.
Cities most capable of Euro level games would be Timisoara,Cluj-Napoca,Brasov,Craiova,Bucharest,Constanta because of a combination of location,demography,income,infrastructure,tradition in football(teams in the first league),fans etc.Iasi in the NE is also a good choice but disadvantaged by the development in the zone.
My money goes on Turkey 2020 and Romania&Hungary 2024.
Good luck to all contenders


----------



## Cirdan

kamadeva said:


> Turkey is the favorite in my books,i wouldn't bid against them in 2020.
> Romania should concentrate on 2024,but with whom one might ask;historically our best neighbours have been the serbs(there's a saying that goes sthg like "Romania has 2 friends Serbia and the Black Sea").Serbia is also a fast developing country with a team stronger than many in C&EE(even ours).This is not likely to happen but possible.
> The bid with Bulgaria would be okay but we have nothing in common with them.We have a strong developed south,they have a weak developed north,not compatible.A common bid might change that.
> Hungary&Romania is prolly the best option.The historycal link of Transilvania to both countries and the big minority of hungarians as well as a large hungarian FDI in Transilvania proves the good working relations.The hungarian motorways will link with A1,A2,A3 motorways in Romania going West-Central-South-South East which will most likely be completed by then.The most prosperous cities in Romania are in the West and South,again a big plus to a bid with Hungary.
> Romania atm is ahead in arena and sports facilities development but behind in infrastructure in relations to Hungary.
> Cities most capable of Euro level games would be Timisoara,Cluj-Napoca,Brasov,Craiova,Bucharest,Constanta because of a combination of location,demography,income,infrastructure,tradition in football(teams in the first league),fans etc.Iasi in the NE is also a good choice but disadvantaged by the development in the zone.
> My money goes on Turkey 2020 and Romania&Hungary 2024.
> Good luck to all contenders


I believe it would not necessarily be a bad idea to bid even without too much hope winning - you can see where UEFA sees the biggest deficits and concentrate on them 4 years later.

But yes, Turkey 2020 and Balkan 2024 (Romana-Hungary, Romania-Bulgaria or some ex-Yugo combined bid) seems likely... though I can see Italy or Spain getting 2024. I doubt they'll get 2020, because one of the big 5 already got the last one, I doubt they'll go to 2 of the traditional powers in a row... but Romania and Turkey are pretty close, which might speak for a Western candidate in '24.


----------



## LuckyFace

I believe Turkey will win the bid


----------



## Aikishi

The winner of the EURO 2020 bid will be declared in 2014.

4 years waiting 

Or 3 years,because 2010 is almost over


----------



## cornelinho

koynov said:


> Maybe you are right for Hungary, but Bulgaria need from Euro 2020 because we want to develop our Infrastructure just like romanians. Hungary already have good roads, hotels etc.


is bulgaria interested in biding for 2020/2024 ? an if not with romania then what other option ?


----------



## alex_zebe

I like the idea of Bosnia-Croatia-Serbia hosting the tournament. However, Turkey will probably win.

As for Romania bidding with Bulgaria or Hungary, that will probably happen for the 2024 tournament (though I prefer the 2020 tournament). I don't have a favorite, both countries have some kind of a link with Romania, Bulgaria from the political point of view (both joining NATO in 2004 and the EU in 2007) and Hungary from the historical point of view (Transylvania is the most important common point) and in terms of transport infrastructure (2 motorways linking the two countries are currently U/C). 

Regarding the host cities, in Romania they will probably be the unofficial capitals of the important historical regions (Bucuresti-Muntenia, Cluj-Transylvania, Timisoara-Banat, Craiova-Oltenia, Iasi-Moldova and Constanta-Dobrogea). One or two of these will probably end up as being reserve stadiums -cities- (maybe Iasi and/or Constanta?). A second Transylvanian city (Brasov) could also come into discution, as it has one of the best sport infrastructure in the country and has lots of accommodation facilities (like Constanta, it's a great tourist destination here).

There are currently three stadiums U/C in Romania, of which two could host matches ot the EURO: Cluj Arena (some 30.000 seats, due to be completed next summer) and Bucharest National Stadium (55.000 seats, expendable to 63.000 seats, to be completed in May). The stadiums from Cluj may also need an expansion.
There are plans of new stadiums in Brasov, Timisoara, Craiova and, I think, Constanta.

The National Stadium from Bucharest









Cluj Arena









As for Hungary, some plans I found on the internet: Renovation of the Puskas Ferenc stadium in Budapest (68.000 seats)










I'd like to hear about the Bulgarian and Hungarian possible host cities/stadiums.


----------



## TataMuminka

kamadeva said:


> The bid with Bulgaria would be okay but we have nothing in common with them.We have a strong developed south,they have a weak developed north,not compatible.A common bid might change that.


It might change that more than you could imagine. Something as simple as a motorway in a new, undeveloped region may help it develop.
In fact I think this weak development of adjacent regions in two countries makes them compatible.


----------



## ffchc

This is Turkey's to lose (hopefully not). They have demonstrated they have the will and capacity do stage it.


----------



## PaulFCB

www.sercan.de said:


> Nooooo
> But it could be.
> 
> So Turkey 2024 . Actually if Turkey do not gets EURO 2020, they wil bid for a WC


 And maybe one of his grandparents is from Ireland and we Have Ireland&Northern Ireland 2024 :lol:



kamadeva said:


> The historycal link of Transilvania to both countries and the big minority of hungarians as well as a large hungarian FDI in Transilvania proves the good working relations.The hungarian motorways will link with A1,A2,A3 motorways in Romania going West-Central-South-South East which will most likely be completed by then.The most prosperous cities in Romania are in the West and South,again a big plus to a bid with Hungary.


 And what does Hungary have in common if they historically had Transylvania? hno:
All the time Romanians were a majority over there when Tr. was under them, not to mention that except for some forced hungarization every Romanian kept it's identity ( and the one's that were huninized are "Hungarians in Romania" now ). Not to mention the minority is just over there in the Secui Land, I doubt Harghita or Covasna will have anything to do with hosting games for a Euro and that doesn't change anything cause everybody is different, we keep our stuff, they want theirs! Just because some Hungarian minority lives in a specific place in the country, isolated and rarely in other places doesn't mean we have anything in common with them hno:.
Not to mention Euro 2020 would be a nice tournament for Romania to start on a Thursday instead of Friday, because if it will be on 4th of June then we will celebrate 100 years from the great treaty of Trianon .


----------



## PaulFCB

*D*


----------



## cornelinho

bucharest ost the will not host the final. and i don.t see a 65k final stadium in sofia...


----------



## Google1998

Romania wants the Euro really badly and they will get it! Maybe not Euro 2020 if that will go to Turkey, but Euro 2024 for sure. Platini was practically elected because of the Romanian chief federation, Sandu calling up all the chiefs of the federations in Bucharest for a secret meeting. This is how Platini won his mandate...

They have the money, they have very nice cities especially in Transylvania (Timisoara, Cluj-Napoca, Brasov), also the North of Bucovina is very developped for tourism (Piatra Neamt for example), the seaside (Constanta) and the capital (Bucharest).

They already started to build a national stadium in Bucharest (Elite, 55.000 places) and in Cluj-Napoca another Elite one, of U Cluj about 32.000 places.

The main problem is that Romania doesnt find another country to host it! Bulgaria rejected the invitation because they dont have money and they will only try to organise a volleyball major competition, while my Hungary cant be ready until 2024 I think, even tough I am not sure we can make it. So we will not try to host it with Czechia because they also dont have money, we can host it only with Romania if we find money. So I know better the situation from Hungary than you all!

Anyway, my wife is from Romania, it is a beautiful country: mountains in Transylvania, monasteries and beautiful nature in North Moldova (the touristic area of Bukovina) and seaside in South-East. 

I will definetely support the candidature!

PS. The latest rumours are that Romania will host single and not for Euro 2020, but for Euro 2024! So it is very probable to have Euro 2020 in Turkey and 2024 in Romania... Italy will probably wait, knowing Platini!

I doubt Serbia has money...


----------



## Google1998

alex_zebe said:


> I'd like to hear about the Bulgarian and Hungarian possible host cities/stadiums.


you talk just to talk, read my previous post. Bulgaria refused you, Hungary cant be ready till 2024 at least, we are in severe crisis now.

in our press there are rumours that Romania will host single in 2024, because Turkey will take the Euro 2020 and other countries from East arent prepared.

you talk about imaginary projects, talk only about your country, cause here unfortunately we dont find money not even for the renovation of Ferenc Puskas and not even for hosting the European Champs of handball... sad, but true! hno:


----------



## alex_zebe

Ok, you're just being ignorant. Please point out: where did I say that I was talking about real projects? Just to cover your affirmation and show that you don't "talk just to talk".
We are talking scenarios here, because there is no official bidding fron any of these countries. 
About the "talk only about your country" part, why do you think I asked for someone to tell me about possible Hungarian or Bulgarian host cities/stadiums? 

And please, read the definition of "possible". It would help you. Just like a pill would.


----------



## cornelinho

if anyone is talking just to talk its uou google1998 ... 

romania will not take euro 2024 ... for the same reason as bulgaria or hungary, your press is inventing things... here on the 2 of december mircea sandu said that romania and hungary will bid for 2024, 

http://www.onlinesport.ro/stiri/fotbal/euro/70029/nasu-vrea-sa-aduca-euro-2024-in-romania.htm


----------



## Kuwaiti

..


----------



## Google1998

pal, I am from Europe and I can tell you that Ireland is near to bankrupcy... the country from Europe with the most severe crisis! so no Euro for them...


----------



## parcdesprinces

Kuwaiti said:


> Their bid was the strongest and most tempting


The most tempting...maybe for you !

The Turkish bid was strong indeed, but the French one was even stronger :

-Largest proposed stadiums (and none of them has an athletics track)
-Better tourist spots/cities (1st tourist destination in the world)
-A larger high-speed network already in place (1st one in Europe and 3rd one in the world)
-Better highway/freeway network already in place
-Better transportation systems already in place in the 11 proposed host cities
-Larger airports
-Better technology infrastructure
-Renewable energy used in the 12 proposed stadiums 
-Very good experience in hosting big events (safety & security)
-A great location between the 4 other football powerhouses (already connected with France by high-speed trains)


----------



## miguelon

If Qatar is big enough for the World Cup, then Luxemburg or Monaco, even Vatican City should bid for Euro 2020.


----------



## cornelinho

miguelon said:


> If Qatar is big enough for the World Cup, then Luxemburg or Monaco, even Vatican City should bid for Euro 2020.


or your head seeing you have nothing there...


----------



## Troopchina

Mr.Underground said:


> Cornelinho, what do you think about the joint bid Hungary-Czech Republic?


Those countries don't even border each other.

It's like having the Netherlands and Bulgaria joint bid.


----------



## lukaszek89

Bulgaria-Romania would be interesting.


----------



## lukaszek89

BTW: Will Croatia make bid for Euro?


----------



## Luckysmile

parcdesprinces said:


> The most tempting...maybe for you !
> 
> The Turkish bid was strong indeed, but the French one was even stronger :
> 
> -Largest proposed stadiums (and none of them has an athletics track)
> -Better tourist spots/cities (1st tourist destination in the world)
> -A larger high-speed network already in place (1st one in Europe and 3rd one in the world)
> -Better highway/freeway network already in place
> -Better transportation systems already in place in the 11 proposed host cities
> -Larger airports
> -Better technology infrastructure
> -Renewable energy used in the 12 proposed stadiums
> -Very good experience in hosting big events (safety & security)
> -A great location between the 4 other football powerhouses (already connected with France by high-speed trains)


+ michele platinis and theo zwanzigers french-german-lobby, a.k.a. "gentlemans agreement"
+ best media-source: knowing the results 24h before official placing

if france is bidding for the next euro (again), you're allowed to troll anyone with french-stuff-blah-blah... like last time against turkish italian people. otherwise, ta gueule


----------



## jandeczentar

Got to go with Italy or Turkey on this. They're the only countries large enough to plausibly need 10 30,000+ stadiums. Plus they're individual bids rather than joint ones between 2 or more countries.

Turkey's problem is that most of their best stadiums are located in 1 city (Istanbul) and most of the others would need some serious (and expensive) building work to bring them up to the required standard. Whereas most of Italy's are already there and would require only renovating.


----------



## parcdesprinces

@Lucky"smile": Sore loser ?? Jealous ?? 



Luckysmile said:


> ta gueule


But no need to be offensive ! hno:



PS: Don't worry I will "troll" again with the "french-stuff-blah-blah" when most of Euro 2016 stadiums will be U/C, and until France 2016 tournament ends ! :baeh3:


----------



## lukaszek89

^^
Try to leave your superioriority outside the forum


----------



## parcdesprinces

^^ I'll try when guys like him will stop to attack me (and my country) !


----------



## Luckysmile

parcdesprinces said:


> ^^ I'll try when guys like him will stop to attack me (and my country) !


"attacking you, youre country" - are you serious?!
- you troll all the time by repeating french-stuff in topic without french subjects.
- you mention french stadiums, infrastructure in non-french bids.
- you qoute (unofficial) statistics/thoeries in topics, where france has no bidding intentions.

and if someone's conters you, you try to provoke. you, sir, are a web-troll. don't get me wrong, but: in euro 2020/2024, only a few non-french give a f*ck about your french-blah-blah... why should i be jealous about what?!

if someone writes down his opinion about the actual topic, why the hell do you write "maybe for you" or "this is what you think"??? of course its his opinion! his is writing in down! are you nuts?!

THIS IS ABOUT euro2020/2024, with probably:
Italy Turkey Scotland-Wales Czech Republic-Slovakia Romania-Hungary/Bulgaria Serbia-Bosnia-Croatia

the best chances AT THE MOMENT have

scotland, wales - aviva is a great one, will host europa league match. the others maybe ols, but they're all football functional stadiums.

turkey - yes, agree! the best/modern football staiums are in istanbul (4-5 teams actually). they really hav to start building outside istanbul. and i think, they already did building some of the euro-proposals.

italy - they started very late with refurbishing/building new stadiums. the juventus arena is a good step forward.

but bucharests "Lia Manoliu" Arena is a big boost! made with the frankfurt-template, but avoided most of the mistakes...


----------



## parcdesprinces

Luckysmile said:


> if someone writes down his opinion about the actual topic, why the hell do you write "maybe for you" or "this is what you think"??? of course its his opinion!
> THIS IS ABOUT euro2020/2024


Indeed, but his sentence was about Euro 2016 bids... That's why I answered actually.... But maybe replies are no longer allowed here... 



Kuwaiti said:


> I'm surprised the Turks didn't win the bid to host Euro 2016. Their bid was the strongest and most tempting.


----------



## parcdesprinces

And, in order to be on-topic :



Luckysmile said:


> Serbia-Bosnia-Croatia


As far I know UEFA doesn't allow more than two co-hosts



Luckysmile said:


> scotland, wales - aviva is a great one, will host europa league match. the others maybe ols, but they're all football functional stadiums.


Aviva is in Ireland, not in UK.

But yes Scotland-Wales could be a great bid, but they abandoned last time because of UEFA requirements due to a 24-teams Euro... So, I'm not sure they want to bid again for 2020....we'll see..

And, maybe you will be surprised but my favorite is Turkey, followed by Italy (and eventually England, but I doubt they want to be in the race) !

About the other potential bids, I don't have an opinion.


----------



## Kjello0

parcdesprinces said:


> As far I know UEFA doesn't allow more than two co-hosts


UEFA has opened up for three hosts. But has stated that one and two hosts will be preferred.


----------



## koynov

There is rumor in Bulgaria for building new national stadium in Sofia which will be 50 000 + and this mean that we can bid for Euro 2020 or 2024. This will be very good for both Bulgaria and Romania.


----------



## alex_zebe

That's great! Do you have any renders or is it just rumors?


----------



## koynov

no there still don't have renders, it's to early


----------



## Aka

If Turkey doesn't win this one they'll stop bidding for anything, that's for sure.


----------



## Capital78

Serbia-Croatia-Bosnia: No chance! UEFA won't award organisation to 3 countries.
Romania/Hungary/Bolgaria: Those double bids are impossible.

Turkey is my choice! Why? Because UEFA is full of those double candidatures. And Turkey was already very strong for 2016.


----------



## sunnynook

My vote is going to Turkey.Turks are building good arenas and I think they already had very strong bid for previous.They deserve to get 2020.


----------



## eagle in sky

My favourite is France.


----------



## BG_PATRIOT

koynov said:


> There is rumor in Bulgaria for building new national stadium in Sofia which will be 50 000 + and this mean that we can bid for Euro 2020 or 2024. This will be very good for both Bulgaria and Romania.


The rumors have slowly morphed into actual statements from the PM and the Sofia mayor which confirmed their intention of building a 40K to 50K stadium near the last metro station which will be located close to the airport T2 :cheers:

I would love BG abd RO to host the Euro 2020, but let's face it the tournament will be hosted in Turkey. After three unsuccessful bids, UEFA will choose them for sure. Maybe for Euro 2024 it would be more realistic.


----------



## bujdoso CH

In Hungary there's nothing official yet, media is writing sometimes about a possible bid together with Romania for 2020, but some years ago the story was for 2016 bid... 

A reason for that could be, that Romania had no bids in past, but has a big football tradition and is cunstructing good stadiums. But as many people wrote, the biggest problem is and will be the lack of infrastructure in the hole region, there would be a lot to do until 2020. So it's not so realistic, but I still love the idea!


----------



## www.sercan.de

BG_PATRIOT said:


> I would love BG abd RO to host the Euro 2020, but let's face it the tournament will be hosted in Turkey. After three unsuccessful bids, UEFA will choose them for sure. Maybe for Euro 2024 it would be more realistic.



Look at Istanbul's Olympic bid
2000 - No
2004 - No
2008 - No
2012 - No
2016 - Skip
2020 - Bidding again


----------



## PaulFCB

Turkey is a serious candidate but things can change a lot in the following 4 years till we have winner...
For now we don't even know exactly who is going to bid.

Euro 2020 in Qatar FTW? :haha:


----------



## Andre_idol

England. They lost WC...they´re pissed. UEFA will give it to them.


----------



## pathfinder_2010

Andre_idol said:


> England. They lost WC...they´re pissed. UEFA will give it to them.


the english will not bid for 2020:lol:


----------



## RahalInter

Italy would have been good but being realistic, After Austria/Switzerland in 2008 and France in 2016, Italy aint going to get 2020. Turkey is favorite, altho I would consider both Bulgaria/Romania and Scotland if they go with a single bid.


----------



## Andre_idol

pathfinder_2010 said:


> the english will not bid for 2020:lol:


Dammit there goes my prediction :lol:

Italy or Slovakia+Czech Republic


----------



## Zorba

Turkey should win this quite easily. The country is already developing quite rapidly, by 2020 I'm sure it will be in an even better position to host such a tournament. 

Also it has the population, the number of big cities, and the passion for football required to make such a tournament successful.


----------



## DimitriB

My favorites are Turkey and Italy !


----------



## Zgembo

Turkey has the capacity to host a world cup on their own, they should not ruin their chances by going for the consolation prize.


----------



## Sylver

I hope Romania/Bulgaria or Czech Republic/Slovakia will get it.


----------



## PAO13

Does anyone know how the 2 past host did money wise, did they put in alot more money than they earned?


----------



## BG_PATRIOT

Gombos said:


> :cheers: Mircea Sandu (head of the Romanian Football Federation) was also elected in the same UEFA executive committee 2nd time in a row.
> 
> ALMOST NO DOUBT, THIS WILL GO TO ROMANIA AND BULGARIA! :banana:
> it was confirmed in the Romanian media also. Romania does not care with which country will host it. they proposed to both countries.


I truly hope that it is Bulgaria, but knowing the irresponsibility and incompetence of the BFU, I think that you might choose Hungary over us. Pretty much Romania holds the decision. Who knows? Maybe if we win the bid, the BFU will step up their game and actually start doing something.


----------



## Messi

Gombos said:


> :cheers: Mircea Sandu (head of the Romanian Football Federation) was also elected in the same UEFA executive committee 2nd time in a row.
> 
> ALMOST NO DOUBT, THIS WILL GO TO ROMANIA AND BULGARIA! :banana:
> it was confirmed in the Romanian media also. Romania does not care with which country will host it. they proposed to both countries.


Why? Because that guy was selected 2nd time in row? Senes Erzik from Turkey has been selected for the 6th time in row and is vice prsident. And still I can't say it will go to Turkey. How can you be that sure because of a selection?


----------



## Laurence2011

euro 2020 to ENGLAND we have all the stadiums and facilities!


----------



## wojnowianin

Sylver said:


> Turkey is not even a European country. I hope Romania or some other country that never hosted the euro.


:spam1:

Can someone ban him?


----------



## Google1998

Messi said:


> Why? Because that guy was selected 2nd time in row? Senes Erzik from Turkey has been selected for the 6th time in row and is vice prsident. And still I can't say it will go to Turkey. How can you be that sure because of a selection?


no, because Mihaylov also elected. :cheers:


----------



## cornelinho

i don't believe in this bid... until i see romania-hungary/bulgaria officaly biding


----------



## emrearas

its a bit complicated. istanbul will bid 2020 olympics and turkey 2020 euro champ too.. and if olympics will be here turkey cant organise euro champ. or the opposite. but for me 2020 olympics is easier to get cause the candidates are not that much strong. also the prestige of it is more than any other sport org.

does anyone knows when is the decision year of it?


----------



## emrearas

"The 2020 Summer Olympics, The International Olympic Committee will begin the selection process of the host city in 2011. This city will be elected in Buenos Aires, Argentina, on September 7, 2013, during the 125th IOC Session."
"Comparable to the timeline in the application process for UEFA Euro 2016 UEFA is expected to launch the bidding process in early 2013 to be selecting the host country during 2014"

ah ok... turkey can be candidates both of them cause olympics will announced at 2013 and euro champ at 2014


----------



## Quintana

The man behind the Dutch part of the 2018 World Cup bid announced about a week ago that The Netherlands might bid for Euro 2020 now.


----------



## jack_jones

Turkey is not even in europe, so that would be stupid if it went to turkey.


----------



## Fenerbahce Sk

jack_jones said:


> Turkey is not even in europe, so that would be stupid if it went to turkey.


Is Israel or russia europe


----------



## Messi

you needed to feed him, didn't you? Do you think you can have any healthy conversation with such a person? Sometimes ignoring is easier and more comfortable.


----------



## cornelinho

i really hope romania-hungary/bulgaria get it... might be the only way we can actually participate at a final tournament these days...


----------



## kamadeva

The 2020 Euros should go to Turkey, if Istanbul doesn't get the Olympics that is.
I've watched closely how the turks "suffered" these last 2-3 bids and I wish they get it.
If they do get the competition, then 2024 is not gonna take place in this part of Europe most likely.

Besides, as optymistic as I am I just don't see Romania pulling this off as well as we'd like to, not this soon; sure we can build the motorways between the cities, we can upgrade the railways, we can build/retool the airports and build the stadiums and related infrastructure...but, will our cities be ready to host? I say no, because some of them need huge improvements; just looking at Bucharest i can tell you we have a s**tload of work to do, unrelated to sports(buildings,wirings,stray dogs,roads,parking lots,expanding light rail,tram,metro lines etc).
Do I/we want the Euros here, yes, but I/we doubt our uniformly retarded political class is able to pull it off...besides romanians are born pesimistic and unimpressed by their own achievements(or their countrymen) and so the attitude will be one of "Can't wait and see how they'll screw this up(the politicians)"...followed by..."I told you they're all incompetent"(perfectly understandable for anyone who's lived here in the past 20years of democracy).


----------



## DimitriB

My favourite is Italy !
The cities I'm thinking of at the moment : Turin (New Delle Alpi) - Milan (San Siro) - Roma (Olympico) - Genoa (Luigi Ferraris).

Napels (renovation of the San Nicola Stadium) - Palermo (new stadium?) - Lecce (renovation of the Via del Mare stadium) - Bari (ready to host, maybe with minor renovation) - ... for the southern part of the country and maybe Cagliari (new stadium !!!!!!)

It's just a vision of me and it's reasonable one I think


----------



## emrearas

İ dont see uefa will give the games to an former eastern block country after ukrain faced such problems at 2012. İf istanbul wont get 2020 games turkey will definetly be the host country. Uefa dont like to be under suspicion again after 2016 election


----------



## Ecological

*The New Look European Championships*

Just seeing if anyone is actually keen on this new format? 

The format of the final tournament will consist of six groups of four teams, followed by a round of 16, quarter-finals, semi-finals and final. The top two from each group would qualify in addition to the four best third-ranked sides, the same system as was applied in the World Cups from 1986 to 1994. This format would generate a total of 51 games, compared with 31 now, to be played over a period of 29 days.

It would make it almost as large as the World Cup but allow countries better chance of progression.

I won't discuss the fixing by Platini to let France host this new format that's for the Turks and co to argue about.

However, Due to this new format does it not make it harder for smaller nations to host from now on?


----------



## Gombos

why to be harder? from 4 stadiums to 6 and bigger... for example, Romania will still bid!


----------



## MS20

UEFA now consists of something like 53 associations, with the breakup of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union being a major factor behind this. For both sporting and commercial reasons it makes sense to expand to 24 teams, as it still incorporates less than 50% of the total number of nations taking part.

The European Championships have grown immensely to the point where, for Europe at least, it seems comparable to participation in the World Cup. From a spectators point of view, its brilliant; high quality international football, played in modern and full stadia, with hordes of colourful traveling fans. It's become so attractive that not expanding makes no sense. I can't quite honestly say that Euro 2008 was the best tournament I've ever watched in my life (dating back to my first in WC 98 though). Germany came close, but there was something far more special about 08. 

Currently, there are probably 4-5 elite nations in Europe capable of winning it. Even in the 16 team format, most of the teams were making up the numbers. That's not to say that they were rubbish or that they couldn't compete, but the difference between the 16th best European nation and the 30th isn't that stark. Most European nations are now fairly competitive, at least until we get to the upper echelons (ie Spain, Germany etc). 

Naturally, those 8 extra spots will give established and emerging countries a shot at tournament football. Remember, even though football is the most popular sport in a lot of these nations, less than 50% of them have ever participated in at European/World Cup level. Being a part of a tournament like this can do wonders for the development of fringe countries. It inspires confidence, makes football relevant, and should see that effect trickle down into participation rates. 

Thirdly, hosting shouldn't be a problem. Even after 2016, we have plenty of candidates going for the next 2 decades. It does make it harder for smaller nations to co-host, but that's only natural. If a country (or countries as co-hosts) cannot support 6 stadiums over 20,000 for their domestic league, then they have no business bidding for a European Championship in the first place. What is the point of Croatia having 4 large stadia for instance? Even if we spread it across Serbia and Croatia, we still can barely justify 4 stadiums, let alone 6. Now, if UEFA started accepting bids from 3 co-host nations, that could work, but it would be a unique scenario. Nonetheless, with 24 teams, a 3 country bid wouldn't be too outrageous considering the format is expanding anyway. 

Otherwise it seems pretty clear that Italy and Turkey will snap up one of the next 3 Euro's each. By that time, nearing 2030, we're likely to see Germany, England, Spain etc all bidding again. I can maybe only see one more 2-country bid in the next 30 years. Especially when you combine it with the demographics issues most European countries are having (something that will hit the smaller countries especially). 

To answer your question, I'm absolutely keen on the expansion. All stadiums will be full with 31 or 51 games, and thats ultimately the most important thing. Any expansion shouldn't detract from the overall spectacle. Top 30 teams in Europe are competitive as it is, so from that standpoint it won't change much either. It will give more nations the chance to qualify, and progress within the tournament. In anything, I'm hoping one day it expands to 32. I have no question that with the infrastructure developments in Europe that such a scenario would be plausible with a decade or two as football continues to grow in Europe.


----------



## Ecological

It also effects the Qualifying stages.

Fingers crossed they reduce the games to participate in the tournament because as Saturday proved. With Englands long season playing a qualifier in June is just silly. The players were shattered. 

Also Gombos - France in 2016 are using 12 stadiums. For 51 games this would be the absolute MINIMUM.

Thats 4 games a city.

If you only had 4-6 stadiums it would be impossible. Plus they have to be of certain capacity. 

The current re-commendation is a minimum of 9 stadiums. 

2 x 50,000+
3 x 40,000+
4 x 30,000+

I like the idea as it gives more scope for more nations to host it. Countries like Romania and Bulgaria cant host it on their own so joint bids are required. This means England will get to host it sooner rather then later 

I personally hope Spain get 2020 but I'd be happy with ROM/BUL bid too.


----------



## MS20

UEFA won't reject Turkey again. They are one of the fastest growing economies in the world, let alone Europe. Their population is large, and their stadium infrastructure is already undergoing a renaissance. In a way, it will not only be the right option, but it might also end up being the safe option. 

Spain seems a bit out of left field, considering both Italy and Turkey have recently been rejected. Again I don't think Spain gets a look in before Italy/Turkey do. After Poland/Ukraine, I also doubt they would opt for 2 more eastern European countries with less than ideal prosperity, if you will.


----------



## bigbossman

Should've gone with the Spain '82 format.


----------



## kerouac1848

> To answer your question, I'm absolutely keen on the expansion. All stadiums will be full with 31 or 51 games, and thats ultimately the most important thing. Any expansion shouldn't detract from the overall spectacle. Top 30 teams in Europe are competitive as it is, so from that standpoint it won't change much either. It will give more nations the chance to qualify, and progress within the tournament. In anything, I'm hoping one day it expands to 32. I have no question that with the infrastructure developments in Europe that such a scenario would be plausible with a decade or two as football continues to grow in Europe.


Can't agree with most of your post. 

When UEFA had 32/3 members the Euros contained 8 sides with qualifying consisting of 8 groups of 6 (from the 80s onwards at least). It was already expanded for Euro '96 to 16 sides to accommodate the large number of new states created after the post-Berlin Wall world. 

You say the top 30 nations are 'competitive', but that's stretching the point. Teams like Northern Ireland and Norway (in the top 30 of UEFA's rankings) are distinctively average and I can't agree the spectacle won't be affected - it will -, especially considering some teams are in false positions higher up. Considering that many believe the Euros a more interesting/attractive tournament than the WC (because it, overall, contains more competitive matches), messing with it is annoying, although I realise it is for financial and political reasons. 

The World Cup struggles to produce a large number of quality matches partly - even largely - because the gap between the best and worst sides is too large. Admittedly, much of that is because the way qualification is formatted outside of South America means the best sides from each region don't always qualify due to the luck of the draw (e.g. Greece getting it easy for 2010) and because of using one-off two legged ties where external events play a part (russia, Egypt). However, even if we managed to gather the best 32 sides in the world the WC would still have significant gaps between the best and worst sides and many would prefer a return to 24 teams. Point is, if the WC struggles with 32 teams, how can Europe claim 24 - let alone 32 - sides without diluting the competition? This doesn't mean I believe it should remain fixed at 16 teams forever more; but currently I don't believe there are enough good sides to mean a move to 24 teams won't dilute the quality, which could harm the tournament over the long-run.

I appreciate that international tournaments aren't just about having the most competitive sides - it is also a celebration of football, so-to-speak. But paramount to any international tournament should be making it as competitive as possible, especially considering the days of the WC and friends being one of the few live televised events ended last decade.

Anyway, since we have 24 sides I agree with bigbossman on the Spain '82 format as it means there is less room for error during the first round as only the top 2 go through.


----------



## Botoxx

My problem is not the expanding numbers of teams but the 2 country-hosting

When the 2 country are hand in hand to do the works and stadiums, with cooperation, help and a common program it's okay

If there is a little competition betwenn the 2 countries like Japan-South Korea in 2002 to build the best stadiums it's even better

But I think that when a country is "weaker" or if one meets difficulties to build stadiums, I find that counterproductive

I think about Netherlands-Belgium for instance, dutch stadiums IMO were much better and furthermore Netherlands host the final tournament. It creates an unbalance. What can we expect for 2012 ?

I prefer a single country host even if its a "small" country. 
Like in Portugal, there was :

1 stadium > 60 000
2 stadiums > 50000
5 stadiums with 30 000
2 stadiums with less 30 000 places

Even if they had to reduce after the event some stadiums capacities, it was their own event. But now they ve got huge economic troubles, so maybe 10 stadiums its too big for a "small" country


----------



## MS20

kerouac1848 said:


> Can't agree with most of your post.
> 
> You say the top 30 nations are 'competitive', but that's stretching the point. Teams like Northern Ireland and Norway (in the top 30 of UEFA's rankings) are distinctively average and I can't agree the spectacle won't be affected - it will -, especially considering some teams are in false positions higher up.


Likewise, I disagree with pretty much everything you wrote. On the paragraph that I quoted above, I'd just like to state the results of Norway's last 9 matches:

Norway 2 - 1 France (Friendly)
Iceland 1 - Norway 2 (ECQ)
Norway 1 - 0 Portugal (ECQ)
Cyprus 1 - 2 Norway (ECQ)
Croatia 2 - 1 Norway (Friendly)
Rep. Ireland 1 - 2 Norway (Friendly)
Poland 1 - 0 Norway (Friendly)
Norway 1 - 1 Denmark (ECQ)
Portugal 1 - 0 Norway (ECQ)

Distinctively average isn't the term I'd use. Even worse, they are ranked 8th in Europe, and 12th in the world..... and this is exactly the type of country I'm talking about. Loves football, plays it competitively, but misses out on major tournaments constantly because of their restrictions. 

Northern Ireland is a pointless comparison because even with 24 spots they are unlikely to qualify. They are a country of just over a million. These aren't the smaller countries I'm referring to. 

The countries I was alluding to are the likes of Norway, Croatia, Serbia, Denmark, Greece, Russia, Slovenia, Switzerland, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Turkey, Ukraine, Republic of Ireland, Hungary, Poland, Austria, Bosnia, Israel, Bulgaria, Scotland, Romania, Wales, and Finland off the top of my head who will be given a real chance to qualify for consecutive tournaments at a time (I know I've missed some). These are all competitive nations with large football following, and can all do as well as any of the teams who made up the numbers in Euro 2008 (for those that didn't already participate in 08).

Football gets a big fillip when countries particpiate in large tournaments. European countries are generally competitive amongst themselves. Outside of the smallest nations on the continent, there are relatively few blowouts. As I said, there are perhaps 5 teams capable of winning a European Championship (a Greece is unlikely to happen again), so what difference does it make if there are 11 pretenders or 19? It IS about the festivity that goes with it, and more importantly its about the boost football gets in emerging and established footballing nations. Moreover, it allows for even greater development in the hosts stadium infrastructure, and it makes qualification far more interesting with an extra spot up for grabs. 

No argument can muster a reason for it to stay at 16. "Competitiveness" doesn't hold up either, unfortunately. Sorry. Thankfully, UEFA see it that way too.


----------



## Rev Stickleback

Gombos said:


> why to be harder? from 4 stadiums to 6 and bigger... for example, Romania will still bid!


Currently they have 8 stadiums, not 4, so you'd need to go to about 12 stadiums with a 30,000 capacity (which would mean a normal capacity of about 35,000 as so many seats are lost due to press etc)


Joint hosting would be the only way to go far all barring the large nations, as none would be able to offer that many stadiums of that size.


----------



## Dyl070_DH

no c'mon that new format is completely ridiculous. it is good as it is right now. a team that is ranked 3rd in the group still has to possibility to go through, that's very strange. cuz it's clear that team just sucks. can you imagine Macedonia - Estonia on a EC, not a advertisement foor European football troughout the world 

it's just a way to gain more money. The FIFA is corrupt, but the UEFA is not much better!!


----------



## kerouac1848

> Norway 2 - 1 France (Friendly)
> Iceland 1 - Norway 2 (ECQ)
> Norway 1 - 0 Portugal (ECQ)
> Cyprus 1 - 2 Norway (ECQ)
> Croatia 2 - 1 Norway (Friendly)
> Rep. Ireland 1 - 2 Norway (Friendly)
> Poland 1 - 0 Norway (Friendly)
> Norway 1 - 1 Denmark (ECQ)
> Portugal 1 - 0 Norway (ECQ)
> 
> Distinctively average isn't the term I'd use. Even worse, they are ranked 8th in Europe, and 12th in the world..... and this is exactly the type of country I'm talking about. Loves football, plays it competitively, but misses out on major tournaments constantly because of their restrictions.


First off, I mentioned UEFA rankings not FIFA. Under this ranking, Norway are currently 19 not 8 going by April's measurement (I got it wrong with NI, but at the same time they've been in the top 30 within the past 2 years). UEFA base their seedings for the Euros on their coefficient, not FIFA.

Second, fewer than 10 home-and-away matches spread over a year (of which 45% are meaningless friendlies) is not an indication of a sides worth and their potential performance in an international tournament. 

Third, even ignoring the above, those results are not especially impressive. They beat France in a friendly at a time when most sides were (it was Blanc's first match). Norway played three other sides ranked above themselves under UEFA rankings (Portugal, Denmark and CR) and they won just 1 of those 4 matches, whilst Cyprus and Iceland are ranked in the bottom 15 by UEFA. Hardly brilliant, whilst they haven't qualified for a major tournament in over 10 years. Average isn't synonymous with bad, a mistake you appear to be making. 


> Northern Ireland is a pointless comparison because even with 24 spots they are unlikely to qualify. They are a country of just over a million. These aren't the smaller countries I'm referring to.


You said the top 30 European sides are competitive, something NL were less than 2 years ago according to UEFA. That was what I wrote into response to. The point I was trying to highlight is, IMO, you're wrong in claiming the top 30 ranked sides are competitive, unless you use the term in a loose sense, because look at who some of those sides are. Perhaps competitive is misleading, as I mean sides where the difference in quality between the best and worst is not so great. Add 24 or 32 nations to the Euros and that stretches considerably, not just because of rankings but because you increase the pool of average sides and increase the number of matches where the gap is too big. Instead of have 31 games of which a large number are of high value you've massively diluted that. 



> The countries I was alluding to are the likes of Norway, Croatia, Serbia, Denmark, Greece, Russia, Slovenia, Switzerland, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Turkey, Ukraine, Republic of Ireland, Hungary, Poland, Austria, Bosnia, Israel, Bulgaria, Scotland, Romania, Wales, and Finland off the top of my head who will be given a real chance to qualify for consecutive tournaments at a time (I know I've missed some). These are all competitive nations with large football following, and can all do as well as any of the teams who made up the numbers in Euro 2008 (for those that didn't already participate in 08).


Wales haven't been in an international tournament in my life time whilst Finland never have. Turkey and CR were major forces relatively recently (last decade). Indeed, the CR were arguably the best side in 2004. 

Point is that some of those sides have proved they've been good enough to qualify (under a flawed system) when only 16 or fewer places were up for grabs, yet others have show they're not. 

You seem to suggest that UEFA should increase the number of places for the borderline middle ranking sides so they can be in more tournaments. The reality is when you do that you really increase the number of average games with less value as a proportion of the total number of games. 


> Football gets a big fillip when countries particpiate in large tournaments. European countries are generally competitive amongst themselves. Outside of the smallest nations on the continent, there are relatively few blowouts. As I said, there are perhaps 5 teams capable of winning a European Championship (a Greece is unlikely to happen again), so what difference does it make if there are 11 pretenders or 19? It IS about the festivity that goes with it, and more importantly its about the boost football gets in emerging and established footballing nations. Moreover, it allows for even greater development in the hosts stadium infrastructure, and it makes qualification far more interesting with an extra spot up for grabs.


By 'football' you really mean the media and fans, since the governing bodies are normally in favour of such proposals for reasons of self interest (easier for them to qualify) and finance.

Ignoring your claim that only 5 sides are capable of winning a EC (it's wrong), it does matter if you increase by 80% the number of duds, so-to-speak, because as I said above you've massively increased the number of matches with less value because there are more mis-matches.

If it's about development then UEFA should be using the 100s of millions they receive every year from the CL to improve the *club game* in weaker states, as it is the club game where development of players, facilities, etc takes place. 

It doesn't make qualification more interesting, it devalues it by making it even easier than now. The top 2 in mostly weak groups already qualify; under this it will be 3 out of 7 sides. Considering that many groups have 3 teams who can realistically qualify (this was the case in 3 out of the 7 groups for Euro 2008), or at most 4, you've reduced the importance of matches between those sides (because their impact matters less) and thus reduced their value and worth.

Anyway, the qualification format needs rethinking in Europe if we want to get more of the better sides qualifying. We need pre-qualifying to remove the 23 weakest sides and then the establishment of 3 groups of 10 like in SA, certainly for the WC. The increased number of games in fewer groups reduces the element of the luck of the draw and, naturally, the more games you play the more chance the better sides win out in the end (because you've reduced external factors), as well as making the groups tougher.



> No argument can muster a reason for it to stay at 16. "Competitiveness" doesn't hold up either, unfortunately. Sorry. Thankfully, UEFA see it that way too.


You haven't made the case at all. You've lumped in some of the top dozen or so national sides over the past 4-8 years with a number who have been no-where for a decade or more to try and suggest that adding 8 more sides won't lower the quality bar. 

UEFA are a membership organisation of 53 associations and the decision to expand the tournament was in the hands of those FAs, not Platini and his policy team. Of course they're going to vote for it as this would benefit the bulk of the associations.


----------



## CharlieP

Number of qualifiers vs number of places available for qualifiers in final tournament:

1960: 17 into 4 (23.5%)
1964: 28 into 4 (14.3%)
1968: 31 into 4 (12.9%)
1972: 32 into 4 (12.5%)
1976: 32 into 4 (12.5%)
1980: 31 into 7 (22.6%)
1984: 32 into 7 (21.9%)
1988: 32 into 7 (21.9%)
1992: 33 into 7 (21.2%)
1996: 47 into 15 (31.9%)
2000: 49 into 14 (28.6%)
2004: 50 into 15 (30.0%)
2008: 50 into 14 (28.0%)
2012: 51 into 14 (27.5%)
2016: 51* into 23 (45.1%)

*estimated


----------



## bigbossman

MS20 said:


> Currently, there are probably 4-5 elite nations in Europe capable of winning it. Even in the 16 team format, most of the teams were making up the numbers.


In who's world you idiot Greece won it 2 tournaments ago, it's fucking knock out tournament for **** sake.


----------



## bigbossman

tbh kerouac I am not against a 24 team tournament. I don't see much difference between the 16th best team in Europe and 24th and it will give countries such as Scotland, Belgium and Ireland a route to major competitions, anything more than that is a no no. It would never sink to the depths of the world cup because The 24th team in Europe is not bad. However like I said this depends upon the format, seeding etc. 



kerouac1848 said:


> Wales haven't been in an international tournament in my life time whilst Finland never have. Turkey and CR were major forces relatively recently (last decade). Indeed, the CR were arguably the best side in 2004.


tbh it was the greater ability to qualify for tournaments that helped out Turkey, Euro 96 was their watershed. 

Czech republic are not a new force though, they were a constituent part of a powerful football country. 

Also Wales have had the teams to qualify, they came close to the world cup in 94 and Euro 2004 and had teams that were good enough to compete.



> Point is that some of those sides have proved they've been good enough to qualify (under a flawed system) when only 16 or fewer places were up for grabs, yet others have show they're not.


I don't know if good enough is the correct phrase. Russia were clearly better than Slovenia over the two legs (played 45 minutes with 10 men) but Slovenia went to the world cup on away goals. I seem to recall Latvia fluking a win over Turkey and qualifying for Euro 2004. Bigger pool of qualifiers would stop those anomalous mistakes.



> Ignoring your claim that only 5 sides are capable of winning a EC (it's wrong), it does matter if you increase by 80% the number of duds, so-to-speak, because as I said above you've massively increased the number of matches with less value because there are more mis-matches.


I dunno about that. I don't think mismatches are the problem, the problem is games between two sides who are scared to attack.



> If it's about development then UEFA should be using the 100s of millions they receive every year from the CL to improve the *club game* in weaker states, as it is the club game where development of players, facilities, etc takes place.


Exactly, although doing so would threaten their control of their cash cow. MAn U and Arsenal aren't gonna be happy if they can't poach the best kids anymore because their clubs can keep them longer.



> It doesn't make qualification more interesting, it devalues it by making it even easier than now. The top 2 in mostly weak groups already qualify; under this it will be 3 out of 7 sides. Considering that many groups have 3 teams who can realistically qualify (this was the case in 3 out of the 7 groups for Euro 2008), or at most 4, you've reduced the importance of matches between those sides (because their impact matters less) and thus reduced their value and worth.
> 
> Anyway, the qualification format needs rethinking in Europe if we want to get more of the better sides qualifying. We need pre-qualifying to remove the 23 weakest sides and then the establishment of 3 groups of 10 like in SA, certainly for the WC. The increased number of games in fewer groups reduces the element of the luck of the draw and, naturally, the more games you play the more chance the better sides win out in the end (because you've reduced external factors), as well as making the groups tougher.


tbh I'd go even more radical with qualification. For a start fixed groups are a pre requisite and also cutting out San Marino and the Faroes too.


----------



## kerouac1848

> tbh kerouac I am not against a 24 team tournament. I don't see much difference between the 16th best team in Europe and 24th and it will give countries such as Scotland, Belgium and Ireland a route to major competitions, anything more than that is a no no. It would never sink to the depths of the world cup because The 24th team in Europe is not bad. However like I said this depends upon the format, seeding etc.


As I said, I'm not saying we should have 16 teams forever. I just don't think, currently, the depth is there. I'd say up to 20th (looking at the rankings) there isn't a big difference, so I suppose a 20-team tournament could work, but then you either get odd group numbers or 4 larger groups (actually, 4 groups of 6 could work in theory). 

The other worry with 24-teams is qualification, as unless it is reformatted it's going to be a bigger joke than now. Look at group F or H for 2012....



> tbh it was the greater ability to qualify for tournaments that helped out Turkey, Euro 96 was their watershed.
> 
> Czech republic are not a new force though, they were a constituent part of a powerful football country.
> 
> Also Wales have had the teams to qualify, they came close to the world cup in 94 and Euro 2004 and had teams that were good enough to compete.
> 
> I don't know if good enough is the correct phrase. Russia were clearly better than Slovenia over the two legs (played 45 minutes with 10 men) but Slovenia went to the world cup on away goals. I seem to recall Latvia fluking a win over Turkey and qualifying for Euro 2004. Bigger pool of qualifiers would stop those anomalous mistakes.


I didn't mean to imply the CR were a new force, I just meant that by linking them together with Wales or Finland, for example, is giving a false impression.

You're right about Turkey, but did that not correlate with an improvement in their football anyway? UEFA had to expand Euro 96 as their membership had increased by 20 members or so. Would have been ridiculous keeping it at 8.

Hmm... i don't know about Wales in 2004. Think they would have bombed if they got there myself (94 is too far back for me).

I'm actually against a play-off tie because of the impact of external factors and luck. If we have to have runner-ups against each then, for the WC at least, I'd just put them all into a group of 6/7/etc with a double round-robin. The only issue is fitting all those extra games into the calender.



> I dunno about that. I don't think mismatches are the problem, the problem is games between two sides who are scared to attack.


But surely if you reduce the chances of Italy, the Netherlands and France being in the same group and at the same time increase the chances of them meeting Scotland, Hungry, etc you get more mis-matches? (in a relative sense). 

The other thing is if you increase the overall matches absolutely, yet do not increase the quality in line with that, you add more potential dull games (in a relative sense). 

The caveat to that is that what constitutes a quality match is not necessarily the quality of the respective sides.



> tbh I'd go even more radical with qualification. For a start fixed groups are a pre requisite and also cutting out San Marino and the Faroes too.


It pisses me off whenever the concept of filtering UEFA qualifying you get tons of people talking about 'elites' and how dare the big countries cook up the system to help them, yet they ignore that league football, the FA cup, CL, and so on are filtered in some respect (same as those that say no one should dare tell African states when to host the CoN, despite the fact that moving it to outside the club season would actually help African football by increasing global interest and thus revenues).


----------



## bigbossman

kerouac1848 said:


> As I said, I'm not saying we should have 16 teams forever. I just don't think, currently, the depth is there. I'd say up to 20th (looking at the rankings) there isn't a big difference, so I suppose a 20-team tournament could work, but then you either get odd group numbers or 4 larger groups (actually, 4 groups of 6 could work in theory).
> 
> The other worry with 24-teams is qualification, as unless it is reformatted it's going to be a bigger joke than now. Look at group F or H for 2012....


It's quite easy to think of a way to reformat imho.



> I didn't mean to imply the CR were a new force, I just meant that by linking them together with Wales or Finland, for example, is giving a false impression.


He's a moron though.



> You're right about Turkey, but did that not correlate with an improvement in their football anyway? UEFA had to expand Euro 96 as their membership had increased by 20 members or so. Would have been ridiculous keeping it at 8.


They had had investment from the late 80s and an influx in foreign coaches, but if the Euros had remained 8 teams I doubt they would've qualified. Looking at the stats they played in a group with old nations only and came runners up to the Swiss.

Remember having your country involved in one of these things ampiflies coverage and thus inspires more children. 



> Hmm... i don't know about Wales in 2004. Think they would have bombed if they got there myself (94 is too far back for me).


I don't see that, no one's bombed at the Euros not even Latvia. They had some good players. Everyone though Greece would've had their arse handed to them but look how they performed.



> I'm actually against a play-off tie because of the impact of external factors and luck. If we have to have runner-ups against each then, for the WC at least, I'd just put them all into a group of 6/7/etc with a double round-robin. The only issue is fitting all those extra games into the calender.


Dunno about doing that, I'm more against two legged aggregate goals football, it creates false games. 



> But surely if you reduce the chances of Italy, the Netherlands and France being in the same group and at the same time increase the chances of them meeting Scotland, Hungry, etc you get more mis-matches? (in a relative sense).


tbh that group came about because of the anomaly of having Austria, Greece and Switzerland seeded. If they weren't Italy would've been seeded and those three would've been in pot 3 (Greece) and pot 4. It's the problem of seeding the hosts.

And tbh I don't see mismatches as a bad thing, although I don't think you'd get them, at least no more than you do currently. 



> The other thing is if you increase the overall matches absolutely, yet do not increase the quality in line with that, you add more potential dull games (in a relative sense). The caveat to that is that what constitutes a quality match is not necessarily the quality of the respective sides.


Do you also agree with reducing the premier league to 16 teams? 

Like you intimated quality =/= entertainment, I seem to recall Italy, France and Spain being involved in some stinkers at the last Euros and Netherlands/Brazil at the World Cup was average at best. It's down to cowardly coaching. 



> It pisses me off whenever the concept of filtering UEFA qualifying you get tons of people talking about 'elites' and how dare the big countries cook up the system to help them, yet they ignore that league football, the FA cup, CL, and so on are filtered in some respect (same as those that say no one should dare tell African states when to host the CoN, despite the fact that moving it to outside the club season would actually help African football by increasing global interest and thus revenues).


I'm not about filtering I'm about cutting them out. Their purpose was seemingly to boost UEFA's position in FIFA it hasn't done that. The micro states and Kazakhstan do not benefit European football.


----------



## kerouac1848

> It's quite easy to think of a way to reformat imho.


But the hard bit is turning ideas into reality.....



> I don't see that, no one's bombed at the Euros not even Latvia. They had some good players. Everyone though Greece would've had their arse handed to them but look how they performed.


Austria!?!?



> Dunno about doing that, I'm more against two legged aggregate goals football, it creates false games.


What do you mean by false games? What would you have instead, longer ties like in US sports?



> tbh that group came about because of the anomaly of having Austria, Greece and Switzerland seeded. If they weren't Italy would've been seeded and those three would've been in pot 3 (Greece) and pot 4. It's the problem of seeding the hosts.
> 
> And tbh I don't see mismatches as a bad thing, although I don't think you'd get them, at least no more than you do currently.


That is true, although in '04 you got Germany, Czech R. and the Netherlands; in 2000 England's group (ok England and Germany sucked balls) and France, Holland (two best sides imo) and CR.; in '96 Germany, Italy and CR and you could argue Spain, France, Romania and Bulgaria in Group B, as the latter two were brilliant in the mid-90s if I remember (I think Bulgaria were the only side to beat a very good - and underrated - German side between USA '94 and France '98, but don't quote me)

Basically, in a 16 team tournament you get stronger groups with more equality, although I agree there is nothing inherently wrong with a mismatch. Maybe i'm basing my views too much on the WC.


> Do you also agree with reducing the premier league to 16 teams?
> 
> Like you intimated quality =/= entertainment, I seem to recall Italy, France and Spain being involved in some stinkers at the last Euros and Netherlands/Brazil at the World Cup was average at best. It's down to cowardly coaching.


No, and I realised when I was writing that sentence that I actually wasn't even sure if I agreed with it, hence why i put that bit in. 

I thought Brazil/holland was one of the better games in the last WC! (personally, Brazil's performance in the 1st half was the best of the tournament)


> I'm not about filtering I'm about cutting them out. Their purpose was seemingly to boost UEFA's position in FIFA it hasn't done that. The micro states and Kazakhstan do not benefit European football.


Yes, but even when we remove the micro-states, the likes of Iceland and Estonia are still there, so surely we had some form of filtering?

As I've said many times before, if the national associations want international football to gain more interest they need more matches which are attractive, which is those against rivals, big names and important fixtures in the context of the group. But the FAs see tougher groups not as generating more interest but of reducing their chances of qualifying. If England had competitive matches every season against Germany, Italy, Scotland, France, etc they'd likely be able to generate higher returns from television (whose true value is probably hidden as the FA package it with the FA cup rights).

At my work a few months back I was speaking with a Belgian colleague who was saying that basically now people only care about intl. football when big names role into town. Considering that this doesn't even happen once a season (because they haven't been anywhere since 2002) the effect has been a gradual decline in interest. He said getting under 10K for a qualifying game against minor player isn't uncommon. 

Now I admit we're talking about Belgium here, and having spent time in Antwerp and Ghent I can see how powerful Flemish nationalism is. Still, I have no doubt if they were to play more regular games against rivals, big sides, etc, interest would rise which would reflect itself in gate and tv audiences. 

My point (finally) is that essentially there are too many meaningless/unattractive games in (european) international football, whose calender outside of the tournaments is clogged up with pointless friendlies and matches against weak/minor sides that many don't care about. Reduce those friendlies (which should only be warm-up games for tournaments imo) and fill those dates with more competitive matches.

I also realise with my Belgium example that I in way proved your point about expanding the Euros.....


----------



## bigbossman

kerouac1848 said:


> But the hard bit is turning ideas into reality.....


As the yanks would say it's all about the Benjamins!



> Austria!?!?


Hardly disgraced themselves, dubious draw with Poland and a marginal defeat to their bigger brother. Although they definitely wouldn't have qualified for a 24 team tournament at the time, they were that poor.



> What do you mean by false games? What would you have instead, longer ties like in US sports?


You lose the first leg 6-1 and you're out, the tie is supposed to be based upon 2 games but the result of the first game (or higher scoring game) carries more weight than the second game. It's like deciding the league on goal difference instead of points (I'm against Goal difference full stop). Aggregate goals spoilt almost all the Champions League and Europa League ties. 

It also makes us think one sided games are entertaining because of the context it puts them in. For instance Depor's comback 4-0 win over Milan in the CL a few years back is considered a great game, however I'd like to know in whose mind a 4-0 no matter what the context is a great game!

here's my blog on it

http://footballthinktank.blogspot.com/2011/04/goals-are-for-vanity-wins-are-for.html



> That is true, although in '04 you got Germany, Czech R. and the Netherlands;


Netherlands and Czechs didn't qualify for the previous World Cup so they were probably ranked lower than they should've been.



> in 2000 England's group (ok England and Germany sucked balls) and France, Holland (two best sides imo) and CR.;


Germany were living off their past, England like you said sucked balls and had come runners up to Sweden in qualifying. If Belgium (and Germany) weren't seeded it would've changed a lot imho.



> in '96 Germany, Italy and CR and you could argue Spain, France, Romania and Bulgaria in Group B, as the latter two were brilliant in the mid-90s if I remember (I think Bulgaria were the only side to beat a very good - and underrated - German side between USA '94 and France '98, but don't quote me)


Once again Denmark and England (who weren't that good) were seeded. Bulgaria and Romania were in pot 3 and 4 putting into context why a stacked group happened, I have no idea how they worked out the seedings though because Romania not only qualified for USA 94 which France didn't but finished above them in Euro 96 qualifying too but were 2 pots below. (I think it was based upon Euro only history).



> Basically, in a 16 team tournament you get stronger groups with more equality, although I agree there is nothing inherently wrong with a mismatch. Maybe i'm basing my views too much on the WC.


yeah a Euro with 24 teams would never scrape the barrel like the world cup is forced too. 


> No, and I realised when I was writing that sentence that I actually wasn't even sure if I agreed with it, hence why i put that bit in.


I think the quality argument with regards to the premier league is such a misnomer.



> I thought Brazil/holland was one of the better games in the last WC! (personally, Brazil's performance in the 1st half was the best of the tournament)


Brazil's performance maybe but I found the game too sluggish and tactical, and the Netherlands' comeback was slightly blown out of proportion. I preferred the more dynamic games involving Germany against both England and Argentina, as well as Italy/Slovakia, USA/Ghana, Uruguay/Ghana and France/Mexico, tbh the world cup was just poor. 



> Yes, but even when we remove the micro-states, the likes of Iceland and Estonia are still there, so surely we had some form of filtering?


Iceland aren't bad and Estonia are shit because they can't develop players due to having a weak league and being in Ice Hockey land.



> As I've said many times before, if the national associations want international football to gain more interest they need more matches which are attractive, which is those against rivals, big names and important fixtures in the context of the group. But the FAs see tougher groups not as generating more interest but of reducing their chances of qualifying.
> 
> If England had competitive matches every season against Germany, Italy, Scotland, France, etc they'd likely be able to generate higher returns from television (whose true value is probably hidden as the FA package it with the FA cup rights).
> 
> At my work a few months back I was speaking with a Belgian colleague who was saying that basically now people only care about intl. football when big names role into town. Considering that this doesn't even happen once a season (because they haven't been anywhere since 2002) the effect has been a gradual decline in interest. He said getting under 10K for a qualifying game against minor player isn't uncommon.
> 
> Now I admit we're talking about Belgium here, and having spent time in Antwerp and Ghent I can see how powerful Flemish nationalism is. Still, I have no doubt if they were to play more regular games against rivals, big sides, etc, interest would rise which would reflect itself in gate and tv audiences.
> 
> My point (finally) is that essentially there are too many meaningless/unattractive games in (european) international football, whose calender outside of the tournaments is clogged up with pointless friendlies and matches against weak/minor sides that many don't care about. Reduce those friendlies (which should only be warm-up games for tournaments imo) and fill those dates with more competitive matches.


Here is my idea, I've had it on my computer for ages, I rushed it into a blog (it needs a bit of neatening up) but it is along the lines of what you say. 

http://footballthinktank.blogspot.com/2011/06/case-for-international-change-part-1.html



> I also realise with my Belgium example that I in way proved your point about expanding the Euros.....


Exactly it's all about important games.


----------



## DaveyCakes

It's ludicrous. A bloated group stage full of dull matches between mediocre teams.


----------



## kerouac1848

Lots to my teeth in since you linked your blog, but we'll go way off topic so i't will have to be dug out for another day. The last bit you did is totally relevant to this post, so I'll comment on it and other people can throw their own opinion in.


> Here is my idea, I've had it on my computer for ages, I rushed it into a blog (it needs a bit of neatening up) but it is along the lines of what you say.
> 
> http://footballthinktank.blogspot.co...ge-part-1.html


I agree with much that, it's very similar to what I have been thinking. If you remember that Johnathon Wilson blog on the WC about a year ago I did a long post where I first put pen to paper on my idea of 3 groups of 10 (which I had been thinking about for ages).

The Africa model is also something that I began thinking about when I realised that when the Euros move to 24 teams, under 3 groups of 10 eight of those sides would qualify, making it pointless (under 16 you can get away with it). So larger groups spanned over a longer period began to make sense.

The 'zone' concept is a new one, but I like it, and the idea of fixed qualifiers makes sense because it allows for the potential of new rivalries to develop (and rugby, cricket, etc show that playing the same sides often doesn't harm interest). 

Perhaps though I would have 4 instead of three, NW, SW, SE, NE, with 12 in 3 groups and 11 in one (SE). Top 6 qualify for the Euros and top 3 for the WC (ideally, there would be 16 WC places for UEFA, meaning it becomes top 4). 

NW - Belgium, Denmark, England, Germany, Iceland, Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Norway, Republic of Ireland, Scotland, Sweden, Wales

SW - Austria, Albania, Bosnia, Croatia, France, Italy, Montenegro, Portugal, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland

NE - Belarus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Poland, Russia, Slovakia, Ukraine, Finland

SE - Armenia, Azerbaijan, Cyprus, Greece, Israel, Macedonia, Turkey, Romania, Bulgaria, Georgia, Kazakhstan

The major weakness with this is the SE zone is weak by today's standards (and there are issues with the NE/SE), but this is just a quick think and I would probably shuffle/change things if I thought about it more.


----------



## MS20

*bigbossman*

The tournament is going to have 24 teams. Enjoy asshole; I know that our fellow overlords at UEFA and I will.


----------



## bigbossman

MS20 said:


> *bigbossman*
> 
> The tournament is going to have 24 teams. Enjoy asshole; I know that our fellow overlords at UEFA and I will.


LMAO little boy, maybe you should read what I actually write before getting your panties in a twist.


----------



## bigbossman

*
Here's part 2 of my blog which talks about when the games should be played feel free to comment there if you feel this is getting off topic.

http://footballthinktank.blogspot.com/2011/06/case-for-international-change-part-2.html*



kerouac1848 said:


> Lots to my teeth in since you linked your blog, but we'll go way off topic so i't will have to be dug out for another day. The last bit you did is totally relevant to this post, so I'll comment on it and other people can throw their own opinion in.
> 
> I agree with much that, it's very similar to what I have been thinking. If you remember that Johnathon Wilson blog on the WC about a year ago I did a long post where I first put pen to paper on my idea of 3 groups of 10 (which I had been thinking about for ages).


I read your post last year, it's an obvious solution/desire in many ways and I am sure there are lots of people who see South American qualifiers and are envious. 

I'd always wanted long qualifiers and the desire for fixed groups was linked to the six nations and watching college American football.



> The Africa model is also something that I began thinking about when I realised that when the Euros move to 24 teams, under 3 groups of 10 eight of those sides would qualify, making it pointless (under 16 you can get away with it). So larger groups spanned over a longer period began to make sense.


Yep, I've always love the South American qualifiers and they've always been something I'd felt should be replicated in Europe.



> The 'zone' concept is a new one, but I like it, and the idea of fixed qualifiers makes sense because it allows for the potential of new rivalries to develop (and rugby, cricket, etc show that playing the same sides often doesn't harm interest).


The zones came about because the only way it would work is with fixed qualifiers, when I first looked into the idea it was based upon a four year rotation with groups changing every year. The problem with that was that there would be no double round robin for the Euros as originally I had the first 14 games counting towards the Euros and all 28 counting towards the world cup with the top 2-3 teams from the Second division being promoted to their relevant Zone for the next four years. Obviously the problem is that that's unfair as the home/away balance could be skewed in certain teams favour and many teams would be out of contention very early on. So the fixed groups with the same teams were so that the Euros and World Cup qualifiers could both be played on a four year loop and so that all teams would be kept interested in all games as they would be double counted. The geography thing made sense.



> Perhaps though I would have 4 instead of three, NW, SW, SE, NE, with 12 in 3 groups and 11 in one (SE). Top 6 qualify for the Euros and top 3 for the WC (ideally, there would be 16 WC places for UEFA, meaning it becomes top 4).


I've kind of shown in the second part of my blog why I wanted 15 team groups. I created windows specifically and I wanted to fill as much as them as possible with qualifiers (it would work even without part 2 of my idea) and 12 team groups would be only 22 games meaning there would still be way too many friendlies. Basically I feel the amount of internationals should be reduced but their importance increased and there in lies the fine balance.



> NW - Belgium, Denmark, England, Germany, Iceland, Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Norway, Republic of Ireland, Scotland, Sweden, Wales
> 
> SW - Austria, Albania, Bosnia, Croatia, France, Italy, Montenegro, Portugal, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland
> 
> NE - Belarus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Poland, Russia, Slovakia, Ukraine, Finland
> 
> SE - Armenia, Azerbaijan, Cyprus, Greece, Israel, Macedonia, Turkey, Romania, Bulgaria, Georgia, Kazakhstan
> 
> The major weakness with this is the SE zone is weak by today's standards (and there are issues with the NE/SE), but this is just a quick think and I would probably shuffle/change things if I thought about it more.


There was reasoning for the groups, especially trying to keep countries with cultural ties together. Switzerland, Austria and Germany; Finland and Sweden; Romania with Hungary and Moldova; the whole of the Former Yugoslavia etc. This is largely only possible because of large groups. 

Also as you noted the eastern groups would be decidedly weaker on paper, so the aim was not to give them as much qualification weight as the western groups by having a group that cup across the two regions (south).

Also I left Kazakhstan out because its in asia, Azerbaijan too and because of it's not so friendly relationship with Armenia.


----------



## deemee3ye

and btw, 3 of 6 stadiums above are just projects so they would be brand new... with Vojvodina Stadium being my own design


----------



## Evil78

deemee3ye said:


> NOPE... 2 stadiums in Belgrade, Partizan's and Red Star's. The other two would be in Novi Sad and Nis.
> 
> Demolishing Maracana would be a mistake. All it needs is reconstruction. The same mistake they made with Maracana in Rio with changing two tiers into one.


I think mostly because of very strict Uefa safety rules, the Maracana is outdated. You cannot have a stadium in 2020 with stands built on dirt. There are basicly no exits for spectators sitting in the lower and mid rows. The stands definielty must go. The roof is a joke so it must go as well.... so we are allready talking about the whole stadium.


----------



## Gadiri

deemee3ye said:


> *SERBIA*
> 
> Cities: Belgrade, Novi Sad, Nis
> 
> NATIONAL STADIUM RED STAR (Belgrade) : 51 328 ...final match to be played at
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PARTIZAN STADIUM (Belgrade) : 45 000
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VOJVODINA STADIUM (Belgrade) : 40 375


You can't have 3 stadiums in the same city for the Euro. 

That was the explanation of Sercan.de when I asked him why for the Turkish bid the Fenerbahce stadium (5 stars) what not include (Ataturk and new Galatasary include in the bid).


----------



## deemee3ye

Gadiri said:


> You can't have 3 stadiums in the same city for the Euro.
> 
> That was the explanation of Sercan.de when I asked him why for the Turkish bid the Fenerbahce stadium (5 stars) what not include (Ataturk and new Galatasary include in the bid).


I apologize for bad info! I corrected it, Vojvodina stadium is not in Belgrade, but Novi Sad, so everything is cool


----------



## parcdesprinces

Gadiri said:


> he Fenerbahce stadium (5 stars)


This ranking no longer exists since 2006 (it was replaced by the "UEFA Elite" ranking from 2006 to 2010, then by the "UEFA Category 4" since 2010)...
Today, almost all new 30K+ (net capacity) stadiums in Europe meet the "UEFA Elite/UEFA Category 4" criteria.

Here are the 2006-2010 UEFA criteria in terms of capacity (extracted from the very official *"UEFA Stadium Infrastructure Regulations, edition 2006"*):










And here are the: _*"UEFA Stadium Infrastructure Regulations, Edition 2010"*_ 




Oh and AFAIK, at least for the Euro 2016, UEFA hasn't stated that a city can't host with 3 stadiums (or perhaps I missed this criteria in the official Euro requirements document linked below.... :dunno. 
About Fenerbahçe Stadium, I'm not sure but I think its surrounding facilities were the real issue, much more than 3 stadiums or not in Istanbul (BTW, even Paris had 3 candidate stadiums during the bidding process). 


Anyway, here is a tiny part of the UEFA recommendations about the Euro 2016 host venues:



















(extracted from the _*"UEFA European Football Championship, Final Tournament 2016, Tournament requirements"*_




PS: Happy reading !!  ...and please welcome in the UEFA "wonderland"...
I think they're completely nuts with all these silly requirements on every aspects (countries, infrastructures, cities, transportations, air traffic, tourism market, advertising policy in the host cities, seats size, minimum number of suits/boxes, size of the corporate facilities etc etc etc etc... and last but not least: very precise numbers about the sanitary facilities at each host stadium..... ) = "How to build the perfect country in one lesson", by and for UEFA ! :laugh:


----------



## Evil78

parcdesprinces said:


> PS: Happy reading !!  ...and please welcome in the UEFA "wonderland"...
> I think they're completely nuts with all these silly requirements on every aspects (countries, infrastructures, cities, transportations, air traffic, tourism market, advertising policy in the host cities, seats size, minimum number of suits/boxes, size of the corporate facilities etc etc etc etc... and last but not least: very precise numbers about the sanitary facilities at each host stadium..... ) = "How to build the perfect country in one lesson", by and for UEFA ! :laugh:


I think it's good to have and keep a high standard in order to make progress. 
Otherwise just look at the ruins the Copa America was played in this year. You don't want to see those kind of stadiums/infrastructure in Europe anymore, do you? hno:


----------



## Gombos

on paper, everyone can host the Euro.  but you need stadiums, infrastructure (roads, airports, hotels, etc)

Ukraine wouldnt have dealed with the organisation considering the economy, but the country has big resources/reserves (oil, gas, etc)


not sure if countries like Armenia, Georgia, Serbia, Bosnia, even Croatia (unofficial bids) are prepared to host the 2020 tournament. Azerbaijan for example has more chances than all these, but the country has no tradition in this sport and they can have chances only with a fantastic project.

FOOTBALL OF EURO IS NOT A HANDBALL/BASKETBALL/VOLLEYBALL COMPETITION


----------



## renco

deemee3ye said:


> *CROATIA*
> 
> Cities: Zagreb
> MAKSIMIR (Zagreb) : 38 923


No we will use this one in Zagreb :lol:


moela said:


>





moela said:


>


----------



## Harisson

Gombos said:


> Ukraine wouldnt have dealed with the organisation considering the economy, but the country has big resources/reserves (oil, gas, etc)


Wrong. Ukraine has no oil and gas reserves. :lol: This is not Russia...
Ukraine has received EURO due to large investments in infrastructure Ukrainian billionaires.
Domestic investments + government money.


----------



## Joya

Messi said:


> Because of what reason Istanbul has no chance? Muslim country?


Because Istanbul doesn't sound Posh


----------



## parcdesprinces

Harisson said:


> Ukraine has received EURO due to large investments in infrastructure Ukrainian billionaires
> Domestic investments + government money.


Not to mention the EU investments/financial helps (paid with MY taxes ) in order to upgrade the infrastructures etc: more than € 2.2 BILLION gave to Ukraine by the EU (aka France & Germany) since 15 years. (just like the EU did and does in the whole EE as well as in the "Olive Belt"... hno


----------



## Mekky II

We don't have gas like russians, so we must give money to ukrainians ! 

similar with mediterranean countries, what we could provide them to stay in friendship ? retired europeans to club meds ?...


----------



## Axelferis

parcdesprinces-> we had this discussion months ago with some polish & ukranians forumers and when i said this they told me (especially dear polish forumers) that the money for stadiums were not raised by eu funds & financements. 

But i insisted to explain that if you don't use this money for stadiums it is beacause you can use it to built major infrastructures elements (railways, roads etc...) and after that your money can be used to built as many stadiums you want...only because it is preserved thanks to EU funds. 

then stadiums are indirectly due to EU participation on others major development projects :dunno: bUt they told me "no"


----------



## Harisson

parcdesprinces said:


> Not to mention the EU investments/financial helps (paid with MY taxes ) in order to upgrade the infrastructures etc: more than € 2.2 BILLION gave to Ukraine by the EU (aka France & Germany) since 15 years. (just like the EU did and does in the whole EE as well as in the "Olive Belt"... hno


EU didn't gave money Ukraine for EURO, because Ukraine is not a member.
EU gave money to Poland (about *$55 billion*)!!!
http://delo.ua/world/es-vydelil-55-mlrd.-evro-2012-66936/ (in russian)


> Poland has received from the European Union's $ 55 billion for the Euro 2012, but Ukraine - no penny.



For Ukraine 2.2 billion over 15 years *this is funny*!


----------



## parcdesprinces

^^ I didn't mention UEFA Euro or the stadiums in my previous post, but infrastructures... which is heavily linked with any UEFA Euro hosting (directly or indirectly) , as Axel just stated.

Anyway, here are, below, the *detailed numbers of the EU financial helps & the EU public investments in Ukraine*.....and being a EU member/candidate has nothing to do with these kind of financial aids (i.e. the EPA: Economic Partnership Agreements, which includes the TACIS*; the AA: European Union Association Agreements; the ECHO** ; etc etc; all funded by the EU = France & Germany = MY taxes....):


Numbers are given in millions of €








Source: The European Commission.

(not to mention that the amounts from 2005 till now are not included.... )




*TACIS: European Commission's "Technical Aid to the Commonwealth of Independent States". (which is equivalent to the PHARE programme reserved to the EU candidate countries)
**ECHO: European Commission Humanitarian Aid Office/Department.


---------------


PS: but don't worry, my "bank account" and I :lol: are even more furious against Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, GREECE, Portugal etc etc etc
Long live the Benefrageritalux Union !!!! :cheer:


----------



## Harisson

^^
So what? You feel sorry that it was Ukraine that money given? You have something against this country?

BTW for Ukraine (with 45 million population) € 2 billion over 15 years *this is a penny!*


----------



## parcdesprinces

^^ I just added a post scriptum to my last post  !

So, no, I have nothing in particular against Ukraine (I've even been there, once, when I was a kid, in the 80s.. and I really enjoyed it).


----------



## Cirdan

parcdesprinces said:


> ^^ I didn't mention UEFA Euro or the stadiums in my previous post, but infrastructures... which is heavily linked with any UEFA Euro hosting (directly or indirectly) , as Axel just stated.
> 
> Anyway, here are, below, the *detailed numbers of the EU financial helps & the EU public investments in Ukraine*.....and being a EU member/candidate has nothing to do with these kind of financial aids (i.e. the EPA: Economic Partnership Agreements, which includes the TACIS*; the AA: European Union Association Agreements; the ECHO** ; etc etc; all funded by the EU = France & Germany = MY taxes....):
> 
> 
> Numbers are given in millions of €
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Source: The European Commission.
> 
> (not to mention that the amounts from 2005 till now are not included.... )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *TACIS: European Commission's "Technical Aid to the Commonwealth of Independent States". (which is equivalent to the PHARE programme reserved to the EU candidate countries)
> **ECHO: European Commission Humanitarian Aid Office/Department.
> 
> 
> ---------------
> 
> 
> PS: but don't worry, my "bank account" and I :lol: are even more furous against Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, GREECE, Portugal etc etc etc
> Long live the Benefrageritalux Union !!!! :cheer:


To put this into the right context, you'd need to include export statistics of EU corporations (in particular German and French). These neighbourhood aid programs aren't purely altruistic, they are supposed to give us economically and politically stable neighbours to sell our stuff to.


----------



## Gadiri

parcdesprinces said:


> This ranking no longer exists since 2006 (it was replaced by the "UEFA Elite" ranking from 2006 to 2010, then by the "UEFA Category 4" since 2010)...
> Today, almost all new 30K+ (net capacity) stadiums in Europe meet the "UEFA Elite/UEFA Category 4" criteria.
> 
> Here are the 2006-2010 UEFA criteria in terms of capacity (extracted from the very official *"UEFA Stadium Infrastructure Regulations, edition 2006"*):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here are the: _*"UEFA Stadium Infrastructure Regulations, Edition 2010"*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and AFAIK, at least for the Euro 2016, *UEFA hasn't stated that a city can't host with 3 stadiums* (or perhaps I missed this criteria in the official Euro requirements document linked below.... :dunno.
> *About Fenerbahçe Stadium, I'm not sure but I think its surrounding facilities were the real issue, much more than 3 stadiums or not in Istanbul* (BTW, even Paris had 3 candidate stadiums during the bidding process).
> 
> 
> Anyway, here is a tiny part of the UEFA recommendations about the Euro 2016 host venues:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (extracted from the _*"UEFA European Football Championship, Final Tournament 2016, Tournament requirements"*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PS: Happy reading !!  ...and please welcome in the UEFA "wonderland"...
> I think they're completely nuts with all these silly requirements on every aspects (countries, infrastructures, cities, transportations, air traffic, tourism market, advertising policy in the host cities, seats size, minimum number of suits/boxes, size of the corporate facilities etc etc etc etc... and last but not least: very precise numbers about the sanitary facilities at each host stadium..... ) = "How to build the perfect country in one lesson", by and for UEFA ! :laugh:


Thanks for the link. Have you the same for African Cup of Nations (I seek on the web and I founf nothing) ? 

For Fenerbahce stadium, this explanations was given by Sercan.de. I don't know much more.


----------



## www.sercan.de

You can bid with 3 stadiums / city but only 2 can host it.

And yes, the real reason for FB was the lack of open space around the stadium


----------



## parcdesprinces

Gadiri said:


> Thanks for the link. Have you the same for African Cup of Nations (I seek on the web and I founf nothing) ?


Well, you're welcome ! 

And unfortunately no, I don't have any links toward any CAF documents like the UEFA ones linked above.


----------



## adonys

*Romania's new stadiums that can build a future candidacy:*

BUCHAREST

















CLUJ-NAPOCA

















PLOIESTI


----------



## Harisson

^^ Ploiesti stadium (16k) is small for EURO (minimum 30k)


----------



## adonys

I know that, but it's a start for us.


----------



## wojnowianin

Sylver said:


> Russia is partially on the European continent and most of its history takes place in Europe and is more associated with it especially during the World Wars and the Cold War. Turkey on the other hand has no place in Europe.


No place in Europe because? Turkey is partially in Europe too (silmilar to Russia), turkish people live in many european counries for houndrends years (Bulgaria, Romania, Macedonia), also in the past big part of european continent was ruled by Ottomans, wich was characterized by modern standards (toleration and relative religious freedom), wich in the same period of time, you can't this really say about west european countries (bloody religious conflicts between different group of Christians, opression, exile and pogroms of Jewish people).


----------



## jpgjohnnyg

Not much chat here about a possible Celtic bid. Ireland and Scotland by 2020 would have the stadia and could even bring in Wales if needed seeing many of the other bids being suggested include 3 countries.

Main advantage - Great countries to visit with freindly people who are sporting mad.
Main Disadvantage - Relying on Rugby and GAA facilities - will they be available?

Irish stadia
Aviva
Croke Park
Expanded Thomond Park 
The new Pairc ui chaoimh
Upgraded GAA stadium such as Semple, Gaelic grounds Limerick (any number to choose from but would need huge development)

Scottish Stadia
Murrayfield
2 from Hampden, Ibrox and Celtic Park
New stadium in Dundee
New stadium in Aberdeen

Welsh stadia
Millenium Stadium
Expanded liberty stadium or an other

Certainly some of the smaller stadia would need a lot of work but between the countries they already have 7 or 8 big top quality stadia - so why not?


----------



## Jaybert44

Hi guy! Where is a Slovenia on board? I cannot see any Slovenia, only Slovakia. We have to watch out! Slovenia and Slovakia are different countries. 



SpicyMcHaggis said:


> Croatia isn't bidding.. not with Serbia/Bosnia or with Slovenia/Italy like some have been mentioning in last few days. Absolutely no one apart from Slovenian and Serbian media mentioned anything and there's absolutely no support in public or FA for any kind of bid at this moment. Croatian football needs to be completely changed from bottom to top and any kind of bidding would be completely pointless at this point.


----------



## Jaybert44

From my point of view, Italy and Scotland/ Wales are the best candidates for a winner. Turkey doen´t present a safety for longer period. Probably, Czech Republic with Slovakia should be a good candidate, but there is a really big problem with stadiums - old football infrastructure, but these economics output only positive aspects for all region. Definitely I vote for Italy!


----------



## DrunkMonkey

Harisson said:


> ^^ Ploiesti stadium (16k) is small for EURO (minimum 30k)


not to mention the crappy location :bash:


----------



## adeaide




----------



## JYDA

What does Italy need Slovenia and Croatia for?


----------



## master_klon

90% sure Turkey will win it, but if they don't, The Netherlands will host Euro 2020.

I don't think the other potential candidates can offer anything better.


----------



## GunnerJacket

JYDA said:


> What does Italy need Slovenia and Croatia for?


Pay the bills.


----------



## sunnynook

I also seriousaly thinking that Turkey will host this tournament and Italy doesn't need any country such a small to make propasition.


----------



## jpgjohnnyg

Some photos for the celtic bid


Croke park (76000 seats)

























Aviva Stadium (51500)

























Thomond Park (Currently could accomodate 21000 seats would need the ends developed to bring capacity to 30000)













Pairc Ui Chaoimh to be developed into a new 50000 seater stadium.

















Other GAA venues could be developed such as Semple Stadium or the Gaelic Grounds Limerick to accomadate 40000 seats
























Murrayfield (67000 seats)













Ibrox (51000 seats)











Celtic Park (61000 seats)













Hampden (52000 seats)













There is the option of new 30000 seater stadiums in Dundee and Aberdeen


Millenium Stadium (74000)











Cardiff city and liberty stadium both hav around 25000 seats























Another option is to bring Northern Ireland in instead of Wales as Belfat will have a 40000 seater stadium at Casement park and the new Windsor park will be around 30000.

Ofte people argue about the infrastructure in these countries but that was the same problem for Portugal, Poland and Ukraine and to be honest I dont see it as a problem as most of the venues are located in and around the big cities. The argument that too many stadia are close together is also no longer valid seeing as all of Qatars world cup stadia are within 100 miles of each other!
Im maybe bias but I think the Stadia are pretty impressive considering the combined populations of the countries involved is about 12 million.


----------



## Fizmo1337

Nice stadiums

Should be Wales/Schotland or Turkey. Turkey bid for fourth time now so maybe Turkey first (they also have very nice stadiums) and next one Scotland /Wales.


----------



## DaveyCakes

Semple stadium could be updated, but there's no way in hell that Thurles could be a host "city"


----------



## jpgjohnnyg

Fair point about Thurles although Ive already heard Ukraine is using massive campsites for accomosation so hardly premier facilities either and dont forget Ireland is small so you dont have to stay in Thurles itself. Certainly you can use the 2 stadia in Dublin the new Pairc ui Chaoimh in Cork and one of the stadia in Limerick - any suggestions for other venues Daveycakes? I know this is all a big if because the GAA would probably say no unless a massive financial incentive was given as Im sure the fixtures of the Uefa and the Sam Maguire could be arranged so as not to clash


----------



## jpgjohnnyg

Sorry forgot to mention Galway either a redeveloped Pearse stadium or a new 30000 stadium. Cant think of a more fun small city and would certainly be a great host city


----------



## DaveyCakes

I think that the finals being expanded to 24 teams complicates matters for an Irish bid....If it had been 16 they could have gone for a 4 + 4 venue bid with Scotland....Dublin, Cork, Limerick & Galway (and to be honest I even think Galway is pushing it). 

With 24 teams, you're probably looking at Wales being brought in..Belfast? It all could get a bit messy.


----------



## DÁMASO




----------



## adeaide




----------



## DimitriB

I hope Spain !

By 2020 (I hope) they have plenty (new) stadiums to host the EURO

- Bernabeu (Real Madrid)
- La Peineta (Atletico Madrid)
- Nou Camp (Barcelona)
- Cornella (Espanyol)
- San Mames (Athletic Bilbao)
- New Mestalla (Valencia)
- Nueva Condomina (Murcia)
- Olympic stadium of Sevilla or Benito Villamarín (Betis) but needs (further) renovation
- Estadio Manuel Martínez Valero (Elche)
- new stadium for Mallorca
- new stadium for Sociedad
- new stadium for Zaragoza
- new stadium of Malaga


----------



## skaP187

DimitriB said:


> I hope Spain !
> 
> By 2020 (I hope) they have plenty (new) stadiums to host the EURO
> 
> - Bernabeu (Real Madrid)
> - La Peineta (Atletico Madrid)
> - Nou Camp (Barcelona)
> - Cornella (Espanyol)
> - San Mames (Athletic Bilbao)
> - New Mestalla (Valencia)
> - Nueva Condomina (Murcia)
> - Olympic stadium of Sevilla or Benito Villamarín (Betis) but needs (further) renovation
> - Estadio Manuel Martínez Valero (Elche)
> - new stadium for Mallorca
> - new stadium for Sociedad
> - new stadium for Zaragoza
> - new stadium of Malaga


Crisis is hitting hard here in Spain. I think the public doesn´t want it. The new stadiums you mention, only Malaga might be serious because they have the money, not a real plann yet though, but even with a little upgrade of allready excisting stadiums here Spain would be a good candidate with a very good infrastructure to host the guests, but again no money here.
I think Turkey is a better option at the moment. They have got more to winn with building new stadiums and there economy is stronger. Also I think they have more hunger to get a tournament like this.

London would be cool, but after the Euro there wouldn´t be much London left though...


----------



## skaP187

Something else, a Euro, any Euro for 24 countries is ridiculous. 16 at most, 24 realy is too much.
24 countries tsss, like there are 24 countries in europe who make a chance to actualy winn it.
you might as well make a competition of it stretched out over 4 years.


----------



## Axelferis

I don't think Spain to be a serious candidate because the crisis don't allow more public debt gaps.

It would be a "suicide" to do this when a lot of public service will be reduced.


----------



## Fimleikafelag

adonys said:


> *Romania's new stadiums that can build a future candidacy:*
> 
> BUCHAREST
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CLUJ-NAPOCA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLOIESTI


I think a bid from Romania with a neighbor (Hungary, Bulgaria or Serbia) would be quite good. As for Romania, I think the following cities should host:

București - Arena Națională
Cluj-Napoca - Cluj Arena
Timișoara, Iași, Constanța - new stadiums to be built
Brașov, Craiova - reserves.


----------



## PaulFCB

Craiova as reserve? Let's not forget that this city really has a tradition in this sport, what has anyone from Iasi and Constanta achieved as close as 10% face to Craiova? Yes, they might be in forced crisis now but things will change soon, till we actually bid for an Euro I do believe the situation will differ.
Arad was the city that hosted the first ever football match in this country, it is worth a place, even if that means taking out Timisoara, now UT Arad, a team that has achieved more than any other team from the province in this country is not in a good situation, but then again, things can change till we actually have a chance, for example Euro 2032 something like that.

I would see it like this:

Bucharest - Arena Nationala expanded to 63.000 seats and to host the final of the tournament. Whoever the co-host is, Bucharest is the biggest city out of all our neighbors except Kiev that is already hosting a tournament.
Cluj - Expanded to 40k by eliminating a big part of the athletics track
Timisoara - 40k stadium is hopefully that team won't disappear for another few decades from the map of Romanian football since things there are very problematic. 
Arad - 30k
Craiova - 30k

Reserves: Brasov 30k and Constanta 30k

Any stadium can later be reduced to a lower capacity after the Austrian model of 2008, with something like only 20k-25k being permanet in Arad, Craiova or Timisoara if necessary, would lower later maintenance costs significantly.


PS: I would hope to see Spain go for a World Cup, I know it should be something like 2030 at best since the rule now states that one continent can host once every 3 times but we know very well rules changed during the process of choosing ( thanks to godfather Blatter ). Spain is ( will be even better soon ) in such a good situation, it can actually host 2 World Cups at the same time.


----------



## Sylver

So who is planning to bid so far?


----------



## GYEvanEFR

I wondering if Czech Republic & Slovakia become UEFA EURO 2020 host nations.
:eek2:
It will brought us to relieve their history as Czech-0-slovakia.


----------



## Laurence2011

Turkey
Romania&Hungary
Wales&Scotland

one of those


----------



## Sylver

Laurence2011 said:


> Turkey
> Romania&Hungary
> Wales&Scotland
> 
> one of those


Romania & Hungary sound the most interesting. Hope they get it


----------



## masterpaul

Im nuts


----------



## kamadeva

Laurence2011 said:


> Wales&Scotland


Call me ignorant but can countries that don't exist host such competitions?Or have the scots officially filled for independence and I've yet to hear of it?

Transylvania should host the winter olympics considering they're more multyethnic and a bit weirder that the rest of us and also have all these mountains and snow.

I'm just being mean, but it's kinda true.


----------



## Laurence2011

kamadeva said:


> Call me ignorant but can countries that don't exist host such competitions?Or have the scots officially filled for independence and I've yet to hear of it?
> 
> Transylvania should host the winter olympics considering they're more multyethnic and a bit weirder that the rest of us and also have all these mountains and snow.
> 
> I'm just being mean, but it's kinda true.


England hosted the world cup in 1966
they also held euro '96

England is not a country, it is a part of the united kingdom just as is wales or scotland...


----------



## Xtreminal

I also agree with majority of people, Scotland and Turkey deserves this type of competition


----------



## kamadeva

Laurence2011 said:


> England hosted the world cup in 1966
> they also held euro '96
> 
> England is not a country, it is a part of the united kingdom just as is wales or scotland...


Most people on this planet can't make the difference between England/Britain/UK, to them that's the place where the english live.The english are the top dog in their federation thingy they've got going there.

No offence to the scots, but they're second violin, and many ppl will ask the same question as me, above...Scotland...where, how, when?

Cheers.


----------



## eagle in sky

After the France,it's time for East Europe.Countries of island haven't got the chance.


----------



## Laurence2011

kamadeva said:


> Most people on this planet can't make the difference between England/Britain/UK, to them that's the place where the english live.The english are the top dog in their federation thingy they've got going there.
> 
> No offence to the scots, but they're second violin, and many ppl will ask the same question as me, above...Scotland...where, how, when?
> 
> Cheers.


To be fair the whole "UK" isn't how most people here refer to the country in which they live.. in reality we see ourselves as being english, scottish, welsh, irish... and most people around the world reconise us as being seperate countries.


----------



## imbee

worst thing would be to give it away to asia (turkey)


----------



## adeaide




----------



## Maxi_Moscow

I'd be happy if it would be Czech Republic-Slovakia.


----------



## Evil78

Maxi_Moscow said:


> I'd be happy if it would be Czech Republic-Slovakia.


Maybe if it would be hockey.  
It's kind of difficult, especially for Slovakia, to build big stadiums because there are only two cities with +100k population (Bratislava 400k and Kosice 200k). Slovakia is not Qatar to just build a few 30.000 or 50.000 seater stadiums over night, without considering the expenses and future benefits from those venues. 
At the moment in Slovakia there is only one 30k stadium, in the capital, and all the others are *under 20k*. The situation in the Czech Rep. is even worse, with *no* stadium above 30k. And even these small stadiums are most of the time empty in their domestic leagues, so why to build 10-12 bigger ones, with double or triple capacity? :dunno:


----------



## Marbur66

^^
Good points. I think Turkey will get it.


----------



## kubura

Serbia/Croatia 2020


----------



## Annaezett

If you ask england to host world cup and uero tomorrow, im pretty sure they will be ready for it. Wembley, OT, emirates, st james park, etihad, light, anfield, villa park etc. If you ask them for the next 9 years, im sure they will have better preparation.


----------



## skaP187

jpgjohnnyg said:


> MS20 I may be misreading your last entry but it seems a little hostile to my observation that 24 teams is too much for the European football finals.
> I agree with some of your points but disagree with others. You make a valid point about the number of new associations that have formed in Europe in recent years and that is why I have said 16 is a good number so where exactly did I say 16 wasnt justified? I was only using the 8 team competitions from the past as an example of less being sometimes better.
> You then seem to think its easier for smaller nations to co-host a tournament with 24 teams than a tournament with 16 teams. How? UEFA prefer a single host to joint hosts so the chance of a three nation co-host is very unlikely. I fully support such a pro-active move (read my previous posts on a Celtic bid) as it would open up the possiblilty of a Celtic bid, a Balkan bid, a Baltic bid, a Scandinavian bid or even from further East a joint bid by Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan if they are politically stable but I doubt a 3 host bid will win any time soon.


second that, smaller tournament means more countries able to host a tournament.



jpgjohnnyg said:


> I see my sarcasm didnt work regarding the amount of teams in the finals but thanks for doing the maths for me and highlighting the fact that almost half (45%) of the teams qualify for the finals (or 92 teams for a World Cup finals if you want). Using your own figures 24% of teams qualified in 1988 and 33% qualified in 1996 so I stand by my statement that qualifiaction has been devalued,


This one I specialy second. The quality of the tournament has gone down down down. New if you prefer quantity over quality okay, but mop an end tournament should firtst be about quality. Why you play qualification before the actual tournament? to qualify to a certain level no? To make a selection.
If you want quantity just make a competion/leaugue with all the times and stretch it out over 4 years. More games, more money (maybe?) and no countries who specialy have to invest big time in stadiums which might be turning out to be white elephants.



jpgjohnnyg said:


> my lol was directed at that but the reality is it is UEFA who are laughing all the way to the bank.
> As for the Billionaire comment it was a bit tongue in cheek but hey it has happened in other sports. As for living in fantasy land as oppossed to humour bypass land I think you will find UEFA and FIFA are already living there happy enough ignoring racism and sectarianism and enjoying the brown envelope culture whilst passing chauvinistic remarks. At what point will the clubs who actually pay the players decide to stop listening to them?


I think this option while the current behaviour of UEFA, but specialy FIFA is so scandelous that a ´wild´ bond, maybe orginised by the big teams might be more realistic then people expect.
I think to the normal (European) public it would be totaly accaptable when something like that would happen. I think UEFA should splitt from FIFA when they want to represent Europe correct.
FIFA who cannot even arange that the Copa America and the African cup are played only ones every 4 years, while the European clubs are paying the saleries of the mayority of those players and getting them back injured. 
Accept for the WC I realy do not see the added value of FIFA.


----------



## Mr. Fitz

I'd love to see the Czech Republic co-host it with someone, they could do with some new stadiums IMO. Being Irish I think we're very far away from being able to co-host the tournament, we've one stadium that's ready and the money simply isn't there anyway.


----------



## drowningman666

maybe Czech Republic & Poland


----------



## Jitem

we dont like europe and we know that we r not europeans nor asians. but asia would be so easy to win competitions so im glad being member of uefa. and türkiye is never safe for some idiot europeans.


----------



## Akai

I support Czech Republic-Slovakia's bids


----------



## kubura

drowningman666 said:


> maybe Czech Republic & Poland



Are u crazy? :bash:


----------



## drowningman666

kubura said:


> Are u crazy? :bash:


easy, it was just a joke


----------



## michał_

adeaide said:


>


This isn't Turkey's logo. This was one for the 2016 with just someone pasting the first '20' over the '16', not even in one line


----------



## endrity

michał_;86761303 said:


> This isn't Turkey's logo. This was one for the 2016 with just someone pasting the first '20' over the '16', not even in one line


yeah, quite a poor photoshop job. 

But yeah, it's Turkey's time, booming economy, large cities with large populations, football crazy, and the only big European nation (40+ million) to not host a Euro or WC now that Russia, Poland, and Ukraine will host one.


----------



## R-KK

Laurence2011 said:


> Turkey
> Romania&Hungary
> Wales&Scotland
> 
> one of those


There is no bid from Romania and Hungary


----------



## Evil78

R-KK said:


> There is no bid from Romania and Hungary


If there will ever be a co-hosting bid from Romania, it will be together with Bulgaria. 
But all in it's time. Romania is now mainly focused on making itself known in the tourism market, on giving its major cities a facelift, plus on building a decent transport infrastructure. Even so, it will host next years Europa League final, and if that goes well (and i don't see why it shouldn't), than maybe also the politicians will start thinking about a bid for Euro. If not for 2020, then 2024...:cheers:


----------



## Laurence2011

R-KK said:


> There is no bid from Romania and Hungary


ok, I didn't know this, erm 

Turkey
Romania&Bulgaria
Czech Republic&Slovakia
Wales&Scotland

Although I know the Wales/Scotland one is unlikely... one of these?


----------



## Hendycfc

If any country deserved it, it be scotland. They were part of the first official football game agaisnt England!


----------



## svvo

I think Italia diserves new stadiums but Turkey would be good.


----------



## Messi

jonzi1095 said:


> Turkey is a country with a bad infrastructure ! I have visited turkey in the past, I agree I watch Turkish football in the past and the atmospheres are fantastic ! But the public image of turkey is bad , there are open sewers in some parts of the country and allot of poverty . But there are foundations in place to host a major event in this country


It is strange that this is your first post. Turkey has awesome infrastructure. 

-It has over 10 brand new airports, which you can't find in Europe in one single country
-It has Europe's best airline (officially)
-It has brand-new highspeed train lines and still about 1100 km u/c
-11 cities has brand-new subways/LRT's.
-It is hosting 3o million Tourists each year, making it number 6 worldwide, thus good hotels
-It has already modern stadiums
-Turkey is not poor, it's a high-middle income country, actually 3 times richer than Ukraine in nominal numbers per capita.


----------



## emrearas

jonzi1095 said:


> Turkey is a country with a bad infrastructure ! I have visited turkey in the past, I agree I watch Turkish football in the past and the atmospheres are fantastic ! But the public image of turkey is bad , there are open sewers in some parts of the country and allot of poverty . But there are foundations in place to host a major event in this country


sure u didnt go somewhere else or before 70s ???


----------



## TSpor

He is chevre 1.0 the jew from the Middle East Forum.Getting banned for the 1000th time.Now he is back with his first post :lol:


----------



## Evil78

michał_;87543245 said:


> Oh yes, and poverty is so horrifying. God save the people from seeing someone poor, right? I'm afraid you need to flee to the Emirates, cause in Europe most countries have poverty.


He should be sent to North Korea for a couple of months. After that, he would think that the Tarlabasi neighbourhood in Istanbul is heaven on Earth. :lol:


----------



## Messi

ahhmm I don't think so. Even North Korea is better than Tarlabasi


----------



## oxo

What about a triple nation hosting for 2020:
Romania - 2 or 3 stadiums
Bulgaria - 2 or 3 stadiums
and Hungary - 2 or 3 stadiums

This south eastern part of Europe needs a big lift.


----------



## Galandar

Turkey deserved it for 2016 but... this time I really I hope that Turkey gonna be host for EURO 2020. Best of luck to Turkey! :cheers2:


----------



## michał_

oxo said:


> What about a triple nation hosting for 2020:
> Romania - 2 or 3 stadiums
> Bulgaria - 2 or 3 stadiums
> and Hungary - 2 or 3 stadiums
> 
> This south eastern part of Europe needs a big lift.


And it seems like a lot of the infrastructure will be there even without the event...
Bucharest, ready - 55,600
Sofia, projected - 40,000
Budapest, projected - 40,000 (expanadable to 55,000)
Cluj, ready - 30,335
Varna - 30,000
Plovdiv, projected at 25,000, would need a slight increase


+ some purpose-built in Bucharest, Timisoara?

There would be quitea few brilliant cities to visit being a fan, but wouldn't this bid be too big for a 3-country candidate? I mean a Bulgaria-Romania seems strong enough to cope, not mentioning that Hungary bidded 3 times with smaller partners...


----------



## Jitem

we should bid n after we win, we should give france our right to host euro 2020. but i dont think platini cares. even if we spit his face out, he says thx god its rainin.


----------



## Gombos

oxo said:


> What about a triple nation hosting for 2020:
> Romania - 2 or 3 stadiums
> Bulgaria - 2 or 3 stadiums
> and Hungary - 2 or 3 stadiums
> 
> This south eastern part of Europe needs a big lift.


:lol: triple? UEFA shouldnt allow that.


----------



## michał_

Gombos said:


> :lol: triple? UEFA shouldnt allow that.


But will...


----------



## oxo

I think 4 hosts would be too much.

But thinking of a triple nation hosting I wonder 
what other groups could be created. How about:

Sweden, Norway and Finland

or

Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia

or

Turkey, Greece and Bulgaria.


----------



## oxo

... or how about a Gaelic group for hosting 2020:

Republic of Ireland, Wales and Scotland.


----------



## Gombos

that is fiction, oxo, some of those countries dont afford to host it.


----------



## GEwinnen

The next chairman of the DFB (german football association) Niersbach believes in Turkey as the host nation of the 2020 EURO:

(news in german
http://www.goal.com/de/news/952/tür...ach-schürt-türkische-hoffnungen-auf-euro-2020


----------



## romaz

Has to be Turkey time this time after going so close last time.


----------



## nenad_kgdc

Turkey would be a great choice for 2020, and for later, there are enough time for some other smaller countries to become competitive.


----------



## oxo

Gombos said:


> that is fiction, oxo, some of those countries dont afford to host it.


It would cost a "triple host" country such as Lithuania or Wales about one third of what a one-nation host would spend on preparing infrastructure and stadiums for a Euro Championship.

It is discriminatory that "smaller" nations such as Scotland, the Czech Republic or Norway can not be hosts for financial reasons. Triple-hosting would give such overlooked nations an equal chance to compete with the "big" contenders such as an Italian solo bid or a French solo bid.

The joy and benefit of hosting a Euro Championship should be shared more among European nations.


----------



## oxo

There is a lot of support for Turkey to host the 2020 Euro Championship so
what about *Turkey, Greece and Bulgaria * as triple-hosts 
- each nation having prepared 2 or 3 stadiums for the matches to be played in.


----------



## PAO13

^Ain't happening, to say the least.


----------



## robbery4774

Evil78 said:


> No. His point does not remain, as he puts Romania in the same bucket with Bosnia, Armenia, Estonia, Latvia, Slovenia, etc.etc, where football has virtually no tradition at all, plus those countries *cannot* be compared with Romania in terms of size or population. Romania can easily sustain* 1* +60k stadium (in the capital), and another at least*4* +30or+40k stadiums in other major cities, like Timisoara , Craiova, Cluj, Constanta (cities with metro areas of around 400.000). From these, Cluj allready has a new +30k venue, and Bucharest a +55k.
> 
> The new +55k stadium in Bucharest even proved to be to small, especially now, that Steaua is using the venue. For the next EL round32 game against Twente, all the 55.000 tickets were *sold out in 24 hours!* (even if there are 3 weeks until the match), making a profit of over 1.5 million euros only for this game. According to the club, the demand for tickets exceeded 100.000!!! And Steaua had an average of more than 30.000 spectators on that stadium since they are using it, having even played 2 domestic games (with Rapid and CFR) with more than 45.000 spectators in the stands, which proves that not only international games attract people to come to the stadium.
> Other cities like Timisoara and Craiova have also great football tradition and managed countless times to fill up their +30k stadiums, even if the conditions of comfort are rather poor on those outdated venues. So it would definitely make sense to build some new stadiums in those cities as well.
> And i only talked about football, but let's not forget that cities like Bucharest, Cluj or Timisoara also host a series of other events, like concerts, during a year, which most of the times are sold out!
> 
> P.S. And to avoid a misunderstanding: I was not saying that Romania should get the next Euro, i was just talking about building new stadiums in the countries major cities, and that they would NOT be white elephants, like our friend was telling us above.


The new Bucharest national stadium is a beauty and with a capacity of 55.000 perfect. I don't think they need a bigger because only a few games in the year are sold out like some special international games and the bucharest derby. Well with your logic of the Twente game clubs like Bayern could build a stadium for 200.000 because in the big matches there are sometimes request of a 300.000. And that doesn't include the people who don't even request, because they already know they will not get a ticket.


Well i was last year in romania and i think you guys should focus on the basics of a society before you start dreaming of a prestigue event. 

EL-final 2012 in bucharest is a good thing. step by step romania step by step...:banana::lol::nuts::cheers:


----------



## Evil78

robbery4774 said:


> Well i was last year in romania and i think you guys should focus on the basics of a society before you start dreaming of a prestigue event.
> 
> EL-final 2012 in bucharest is a good thing. step by step romania step by step...:banana::lol::nuts::cheers:


That's why i said what i said in my last sentence. (look at my P.S.) 
But we are coming to the same discussion again and again. :bash: What do you mean by "basics of a society"??? Does Ukraine have a better "basic of the society", than Romania? No, on the contrary. And when they decided to bid, the situation was even worse than now. 
But hosting such an event is a boost for a country from every point of view. If our politicians would commit to try to host such an event, it would also mean a commitment for the acceleration of the country's infrastructure development. At the moment, unfortunately, it's not the case...I said it before, sports is NOT a priority for politicians in Romania. Also, politicians here have a great fear (or no interest, or no vision, or no capability) in taking long-term commitments. We can only hope that this will change in the future.


----------



## robbery4774

Evil78 said:


> That's why i said what i said in my last sentence. (look at my P.S.)
> But we are coming to the same discussion again and again. :bash: What do you mean by "basics of a society"??? Does Ukraine have a better "basic of the society", than Romania? No, on the contrary. And when they decided to bid, the situation was even worse than now.
> But hosting such an event is a boost for a country from every point of view. If our politicians would commit to try to host such an event, it would also mean a commitment for the acceleration of the country's infrastructure development. At the moment, unfortunately, it's not the case...I said it before, sports is NOT a priority for politicians in Romania. Also, politicians here have a great fear (or no interest, or no vision, or no capability) in taking long-term commitments. We can only hope that this will change in the future.


With basics of the society i mean democracy, infrastructure (motorways, train, bus, tram), fair diversification of money, a strong middle-class, innovation, anti-corruption... 

I think romania still need minimum 15 years. But i can see romania holding a ec with hungary or bulgaria. Bucharest, Timisoara, Cluj, Iasi and Craiova or another city could be a nice location for ec. But not yet, you need to improve.

I'm sure the ec in Poland Ukraine will be great, but look how the mafia and the corrupt public stole the money from the Ukraine taxpayer. Kiew, Charkiw and Lemberg stadiums are great but way way too expensive. Typical mafia-style, when the cost for the construction work raise and raise (Kiew => 780 mio € double of Allianz Arena, Lemberg 70 € => 220 €) And i'm sure it's not only about the stadium were the taxpayers got bumped. hno:hno:hno:


----------



## Evil78

robbery4774 said:


> With basics of the society i mean democracy, infrastructure (motorways, train, bus, tram), fair diversification of money, a strong middle-class, innovation, anti-corruption...
> 
> I think romania still need minimum 15 years. But i can see romania holding a ec with hungary or bulgaria. Bucharest, Timisoara, Cluj, Iasi and Craiova or another city could be a nice location for ec. But not yet, you need to improve.


15 years? For all that? :lol: Maybe 25, if we are optimistic about it. 
But still, you *can* host a football european championship, even without a "strong middle-class". (if China managed the Olympic games, without one.)


robbery4774 said:


> I'm sure the ec in Poland Ukraine will be great, but look how the mafia and the corrupt public stole the money from the Ukraine taxpayer. Kiew, Charkiw and Lemberg stadiums are great but way way too expensive. Typical mafia-style, when the cost for the construction work raise and raise (*Kiew => 780 mio € double of Allianz Arena, Lemberg 70 € => 220 €*) And i'm sure it's not only about the stadium were the taxpayers got bumped. hno:hno:hno:


Bulls...! Where do you get those numbers? :dunno: 
And what's your point anyway? Ukraine is hosting this year's EURO. Mafia or no mafia...:nuts:


----------



## robbery4774

Evil78 said:


> Bulls...! Where do you get those numbers? :dunno:
> And what's your point anyway? Ukraine is hosting this year's EURO. Mafia or no mafia...:nuts:


http://foreignnotes.blogspot.com/2011/11/die-zeit-on-corruption-in-preparations.html

Olympic stadium from Kiev i'm wrong "only 550". The part about the wooden bench is typical for the mess.

just google about it you will find much more.

It really makes me angry, when lowlifes like these businessman and politician steal and rape their own countrymen. I will never understand this mentality of corruption and stealing. hno:

Lviv nearly 300 mio. € 34.000









Gladbach 87 mio € 54.000









And i guess german workers are "a bit" more expensive...


----------



## robbery4774

Evil78 said:


> 15 years? For all that? :lol: Maybe 25, if we are optimistic about it.
> But still, you *can* host a football european championship, even without a "strong middle-class". (if China managed the Olympic games, without one.)


You know it makes no sense to compare the rising world power with a population of 1,3 billion to romania... :nuts:

Sure you can host it and spend all your money for brand-new stadiums and infrastructure around the area for a month party. But UEFA will make most of the money and leave you alone with the cost. 
So a big event like ec is not about the money, but it is about how people will notice your country and will affect tourism, business and other stuff.

So in this case, i would say it is better to be perfectly prepared :banana:


----------



## Evil78

robbery4774 said:


> You know it makes no sense to compare the rising world power with a population of 1,3 billion to romania... :nuts:


Who did that?


----------



## michał_

Evil78 said:


> Who did that?


I would bet on that person being you 


Anyhow, Timisoara just announced a new 30k stadium which along with Cluj and Bucharest makes a great base for a possible joint bid for the Euro! Especially if Bulgaria got the anticipated new stadiums in Sofia, Varna and Plovdiv.


----------



## robbery4774

Evil78 said:


> Who did that?


Read your post!


----------



## MS20

The biggest problem with Romania is that its still not a highly urbanized country. A country of 20m+ people usually has numerous large urban centres. Romania has just one: Bucharest. The rest are all below 500k. There are alot of mid sized cities in Romania (between 100-400k), but you don't really want to be building 30, 40k stadiums in cities like that. 

You'd struggle to sell out 40k stadium in England in cities of that size, let alone Romania. Romania would most definitely need a co-host, but since all the countries surrounding is are pretty small, its hard to see them getting anything. You would almost need 2 other hosts alongside Romania (hungary, bulgaria being the obvious candidates).

Also, whoever said that Bosnia, Armenia and Slovenia don't have football traditions is deluded.


----------



## parcdesprinces

michał_;88074880 said:


> And why was that? Because we had a shared bid. Poland could not have more cities, just like Ukraine.


Actually, Poland and/or Ukraine could have hosted with more cities/stadiums if they have wanted to, because there's no maximum number of stadiums in the UEFA Euro requirements, but only a minimum one (e.g. look at Portugal who hosted with 10 stadiums). From Euro 2016, the minimum number of stadiums will be 9 (2x 50K+ net UEFA Euro capacity (including one stadium over 60K preferably); 3x 40K+ net UEFA Euro capacity; 4x 30K+ net UEFA Euro capacity), but for example France will host in 2016 with 10 or 11 stadiums, not 9 (and we could have chosen to host the tournament with 12 stadiums if we have "wanted" to, etc).


----------



## Evil78

MS20 said:


> The biggest problem with Romania is that its still not a highly urbanized country. A country of 20m+ people usually has numerous large urban centres. Romania has just one: Bucharest. The rest are all below 500k. There are alot of mid sized cities in Romania (between 100-400k), but you don't really want to be building 30, 40k stadiums in cities like that.


Childish speculations, nothing to do with reality. How many +300k cities hosted games in Euro 2008? I tell you: *ONE* (Vienna). How many in Euro 2004? *Two*. Euro 2000? *Two*.... And the examples can continue.... We are talking about Europe, not Asia. There are only 5-6 countries with more than one large urban center within it's borders(pop.+500k), on the whole continent.



MS20 said:


> You'd struggle to sell out 40k stadium in England in cities of that size, let alone Romania.


There are only a maximum of two countries in the *whole world* to have leagues which sell out every game (England and maybe Germany). Does that mean that we should demolish 95% of the planets football stadiums? 
And you would be surprised how often a city of the size of Timisoara or Craiova, sold out games in the past few years (+30k spectators). And i'm talking about romanian league games, not champions league semi-finals.


MS20 said:


> Romania would most definitely need a co-host, but since all the countries surrounding is are pretty small, its hard to see them getting anything. You would almost need 2 other hosts alongside Romania (hungary, bulgaria being the obvious candidates).


Wait...Who said that they wouldn't? (need a co-host)



MS20 said:


> Also, whoever said that Bosnia, Armenia and Slovenia don't have football traditions is deluded.


What tradition? Those countries didn't even exist 20 years ago. What is the best performance in the history of a football team in Bosnia, Armenia or Slovenia? What is the level of their domestic leagues? How many people attend domestic games? An average of max. 1.500? Is football the no.1 sport in those countries? From these countries, i've only visited Slovenia, and i know that there are at least 3 other more important sports in front of football.


----------



## robbery4774

Evil78 said:


> Childish speculations, nothing to do with reality. How many +300k cities hosted games in Euro 2008? I tell you: *ONE* (Vienna). How many in Euro 2004? *Two*. Euro 2000? *Two*.... And the examples can continue.... We are talking about Europe, not Asia. There are only 5-6 countries with more than one large urban center within it's borders(pop.+500k), on the whole continent.
> 
> 
> There are only a maximum of two countries in the *whole world* to have leagues which sell out every game (England and maybe Germany). Does that mean that we should demolish 95% of the planets football stadiums?
> And you would be surprised how often a city of the size of Timisoara or Craiova, sold out games in the past few years (+30k spectators). And i'm talking about romanian league games, not champions league semi-finals.
> 
> Wait...Who said that they wouldn't? (need a co-host)
> 
> 
> What tradition? Those countries didn't even exist 20 years ago. What is the best performance in the history of a football team in Bosnia, Armenia or Slovenia? What is the level of their domestic leagues? How many people attend domestic games? An average of max. 1.500? Is football the no.1 sport in those countries? From these countries, i've only visited Slovenia, and i know that there are at least 3 other more important sports in front of football.


Amen! If brasil and south africa can host a wc and Ukraine a ec, romania surely can do it. And in Romania there is a need of new stadiums in a couple of citys. More need like in portugal where a lot of stadiums from ec 2004 are white elephant or have a attendance of 2.000 in 30.000 stadium. 
Just the infrastructure needs to improve in Romania


----------



## www.sercan.de

BTW we have to wait about the turkish bid. Current TFF president resigned because of the scandal and it looks like the TFF do not want to relegate / punish Fener.
So UEFA will give a 5 or 8 year ban to the turkish teams.


----------



## parcdesprinces

www.sercan.de said:


> So UEFA will give a 5 or 8 year ban to the turkish teams.


Really ?


----------



## RobH

Wow.


----------



## robbery4774

www.sercan.de said:


> BTW we have to wait about the turkish bid. Current TFF president resigned because of the scandal and it looks like the TFF do not want to relegate / punish Fener.
> So UEFA will give a 5 or 8 year ban to the turkish teams.


to all turkish teams from european football??? I can't believe. 
From where you have your information??


----------



## GEwinnen

robbery4774 said:


> Lviv nearly 300 mio. € 34.000
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gladbach 87 mio € 54.000


: M'Gladbach/Borussia Park: 45.000 (all seater cap.)


----------



## Axelferis

robbery4774 said:


> [
> 
> Lviv nearly 300 mio. € 34.000
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gladbach 87 mio € 54.000
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And i guess german workers are "a bit" more expensive...



Sorry but a total new construction costs much that a renovation


----------



## www.sercan.de

I don't know if you heard of the 2011 Turkish sports corruption scandal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Turkish_sports_corruption_scandal

UEFA said to the (old) TFF that they should make a decision about before the beginng of Süper Lig play-offs (April).
But since July 2011 the TFF was very slow (before we piunish the clubs, we have to make this....wait thill xxx etc. Why should we punish the clubs.We should just punish the people.....we should change the law. No relegation for match-fixing etc.)
The old TFF president is a Fener club member and he have done everything to give Fener more time.

Now he resigned and we have to wait for a new TFF president. No time till April to punish the clubs.

There are some rumours that only involved clubs will be punished, but its just a rumour.


----------



## Alien x

Evil78 said:


> What tradition? Those countries didn't even exist 20 years ago. What is the best performance in the history of a football team in Bosnia, Armenia or Slovenia? What is the level of their domestic leagues? How many people attend domestic games? An average of max. 1.500? Is football the no.1 sport in those countries? From these countries, i've only visited Slovenia, and i know that there are at least 3 other more important sports in front of football.


If you don't know something then avoid commenting on it or try to get some information about them first.hno:


----------



## robbery4774

Alien x said:


> If you don't know something then avoid commenting on it or try to get some information about them first.hno:


Evil is right, football isn't even number 1 in the balkan.


----------



## MS20

robbery4774 said:


> Evil is right, football isn't even number 1 in the balkan.


:lol:

Just another idiotic post by robbery4774. :nuts:

Macedonia - http://kurir.mk/sport
Croatia - http://www.jutarnji.hr/sport/, http://sportski.net.hr/
Serbia - http://sport.blic.rs/
Greece - http://www.sport-fm.gr/, http://www.gazzetta.gr/
Albania - http://sportsport.ba/, http://www.24sata.hr/sport?from=menu
Bulgaria - http://www.sportal.bg/, http://www.sportni.bg/
Montenegro - http://www.vijesti.me/sport/
Bosnia - http://www.gazetatema.net/web/category/sport/

So in every one of those countries football is reported first. Why would their biggest media report on football first if its not number 1 as you say? No one likes football in the Balkans but their media give it the greatest importance :nuts:

You don't know anything dude, just keep quiet. It's far and away the biggest sport in the Balkans. Basketball, handball, waterpolo, etc they're all popular, but football is far and away the biggest in the region. Anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot.

*Evil78*

Here's the link to some of Slovenia's biggest sports portals:

http://www.rtvslo.si/sport/
http://sport-tv.si/

Both have football as the main sport...

Any genius comebacks about how football is not even in the top 3 sports in Slovenia? As Alienx said, keep your mouth shut about things you have no idea about.


----------



## robbery4774

MS20 said:


> :lol:
> 
> Just another idiotic post by robbery4774. :nuts:
> 
> So in every one of those countries football is reported first. Why would their biggest media report on football first if its not number 1 as you say? No one likes football in the Balkans but their media give it the greatest importance :nuts:
> 
> You don't know anything dude, just keep quiet. It's far and away the biggest sport in the Balkans. Basketball, handball, waterpolo, etc they're all popular, but football is far and away the biggest in the region. Anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot.
> 
> .


relax and watch your language :lol:

The thread is about Euro 2020 bid and in terms of attendance balkan football leagues are so poor that it makes no sense to make a Euro bid and build white elephants. Yes football, maybe is number 1 but in watching the foreign leagues were the balkan players play, champions league or the national team. 
For the national team you need only 1 new stadium, but i can't see the need to build more than that in each balkan country besides croatia with Zagreb and Split.

Other point is that the balkan countrys have problems with each other and there is no way the UEFA allows more than 2 host. Greece/Croatia or greece/serbia could work but i see no alternative because of the historical problems especially croatia serbia wouldn't work

In terms of following domestic league basketball is as popular than the football domestic leagues. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attendance_figures_at_domestic_professional_sports_leagues


----------



## Evil78

MS20 said:


> *Evil78*
> 
> Here's the link to some of Slovenia's biggest sports portals:
> 
> http://www.rtvslo.si/sport/
> http://sport-tv.si/
> 
> Both have football as the main sport...
> 
> Any genius comebacks about how football is not even in the top 3 sports in Slovenia? As Alienx said, keep your mouth shut about things you have no idea about.


These numbers below may shock you, but it shows how popular football is in Slovenia. :lol: Man, first of all you should watch your language. I didn't tell you to "shut up", we were only discussing some facts. No need to be hiysterical about it. 
Don't forget the subject of the thread :
How do you want Slovenia to built +50k and +30k stadiums, when *the average attendance at football games is 1.000???* :nuts: :dunno:









Source


----------



## fafafa2233

robbery4774 said:


> Evil is right, football isn't even number 1 in the balkan.


football is *by far* the most popular sport in the balkans.

nothing elese is not even close.

btw. i am from croatia so i know it little better than you do 




MS20 said:


> :lol:
> 
> Just another idiotic post by robbery4774. :nuts:


+1

Don't know abaut the other post but that one really is :lol:


----------



## iamawesomezero

German!!love the team love the building!


----------



## netgear67

Evil78 said:


> These numbers below may shock you, but it shows how popular football is in Slovenia. :lol: Man, first of all you should watch your language. I didn't tell you to "shut up", we were only discussing some facts. No need to be hiysterical about it.
> Don't forget the subject of the thread :
> How do you want Slovenia to built +50k and +30k stadiums, when *the average attendance at football games is 1.000???* :nuts: :dunno:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Source


We are not going to host EURO. 
But we are going to host EURO U-17 this year.
However, it was only a joke, that Slovenia is going to host or co-host EURO.

If you are laughing obout our attendance, why dont you check biggest sport nations in the world by population? I think you will stop laughing.

Check all olympic games, all world championships, and other biggest 80 sport tournaments/events in the world. And what you will see? We are the 4. biggest sport nation in the world with only 2milion citizens. We are the 2. biggest sport nation in the world by olympic medals in the world.

And where are you? :cheers:


----------



## Gombos

netgear67 said:


> And where are you? :cheers:


what in the world you talk there, Romania is one of the most successful nation when we talk of the Olympics Games! 

Romania 86	89	117	292

Slovenia 3	5	7	15
Serbia 0	2	0	2
Croatia 3	6	8	17
Macedonia 0	0	1	1
Montenegro & Bosnia 0

add Yugoslavia too:

Yugoslavia 28	31	31	90

and this whole block of countries have almost 3 times less medals in history than Romania! Romania for example got in Los Angeles 1984 20	16	17 (53 medals), 2nd place after United States, in front of West Germany and China.

*but for such small population, Slovenia is pretty impressive!* 

sorry for the off-topic


----------



## URSUS

www.sercan.de said:


> I don't know if you heard of the 2011 Turkish sports corruption scandal
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Turkish_sports_corruption_scandal
> 
> UEFA said to the (old) TFF that they should make a decision about before the beginng of Süper Lig play-offs (April).
> But since July 2011 the TFF was very slow (before we piunish the clubs, we have to make this....wait thill xxx etc. Why should we punish the clubs.We should just punish the people.....we should change the law. No relegation for match-fixing etc.)
> The old TFF president is a Fener club member and he have done everything to give Fener more time.
> 
> Now he resigned and we have to wait for a new TFF president. No time till April to punish the clubs.
> 
> There are some rumours that only involved clubs will be punished, but its just a rumour.


That! My friend! is an utter load of crap! UEFA never pressured Turkey into making any decision whatsoever. The Turkish football federation bowed down to pressure from the politically backed Galatasaray - Trabzon lobby. The atmosphere and propaganda of fear created "Oh no! UEFA is going to ban Turkish clubs for x amount of years!" pushed the TFF to exclude Fener from the CL. This can be seen in UEFA's defense to Fener's lawsuit against them (for being wrongfully excluded from the CL). They accept no responsibility and maintain that they had nothing to do with it!

There were no clear charges and the indictment was labeled "confidential" so neither the TFF members or UEFA had no knowledge of the evidence at the time. Fenerbahce was excluded from the CL by the decision of the so called "Fener fan", government puppet TFF president, based on information obtained from media speculation and rumors. As I said before, there was no pressure from UEFA whatsoever and UEFA refuses to acknowledge that they had any part in Fener being banned from the CL. It was solely decided by the TFF with flawed and incomplete information.

This is a legal matter and the courts will decide whether Fenerbahce and/or its president was guilty of any crime or not. What happened to innocent until proven guilty?! Here is a little food for thought. How can there be a match fixing scandal in which not a single player or referee is charged with any wrong doing? The Fenerbahce president must have played in all of these games by himself. For both teams. The charges and evidence that we have seen are bullshit and would never stick in any country with the rule of law. We will wait and see if Turkey is a banana republic or not.


Finally, a Galatasaray fan accusing others of match fixing... That's rich!! Where is your shame? Go watch the Denizli - Fener match in 2006 or the famous 8-0 Galatasaray - Ankaragucu match in 1993. We lost the Championship in the last game of the season twice in the last 5 years. And we have totally DOMINATED all of our rivals GS, BJK, Trabzon over the last decade and somehow not managed to win nearly as many championships as that statistic would suggest. Hmmm??? I guess thats because we really suck at match fixing!! You disgust me...


----------



## www.sercan.de

Haha, 8-0 thing. Just look at that week. Even a 1-0 would have been enough for Galatasaray winning the league. And just 2 weeks before Ankaragücü lost to Besiktas at home 6-0.
About 2006. Denizli would have be an idiot if they do not win the match. Otherwise they would have been relegated.
Leverkusen also lost the title in the last week several times.
And its not about winning the derby. Its about having the most points.


And you really think UEFA and FIFA won't punish Turkey? :|
Everything is clear. Its just an evil conspiracies by GS :lol:


----------



## Evil78

netgear67 said:


> We are not going to host EURO.
> But we are going to host EURO U-17 this year.
> However, it was only a joke, that Slovenia is going to host or co-host EURO.
> 
> If you are laughing obout our attendance, why dont you check biggest sport nations in the world by population? I think you will stop laughing.
> 
> Check all olympic games, all world championships, and other biggest 80 sport tournaments/events in the world. And what you will see? We are the 4. biggest sport nation in the world with only 2milion citizens. We are the 2. biggest sport nation in the world by olympic medals in the world.
> 
> And where are you? :cheers:


Believe you me, if Slovenia would have 150.000km² of agricultural fields, like Romania has (only these fields are 10 times the size of the whole country of Slovenia), and a population of 20 million, those statistics would look different. Nevertheless i admire that country for it's achievements. But we were talking about building bigger stadiums, and at the moment i don't see how that would be possible in Slovenia. 
As for your last question..._Gombos_ already gave you the answer.


----------



## AR.BN

netgear67 said:


> We are not going to host EURO.
> But we are going to host EURO U-17 this year.
> However, it was only a joke, that Slovenia is going to host or co-host EURO.
> 
> If you are laughing obout our attendance, why dont you check biggest sport nations in the world by population? I think you will stop laughing.
> 
> Check all olympic games, all world championships, and other biggest 80 sport tournaments/events in the world. And what you will see? We are the 4. biggest sport nation in the world with only 2milion citizens. We are the 2. biggest sport nation in the world by olympic medals in the world.
> 
> And where are you? :cheers:



Are you serious:lol:?

Romania has more Olympic medals then Yugoslavia+Croatia+Serbia+Slovenia+Bosnia+Macedonia+Greece. It's a fact.
Considering population, I think Romania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Cuba are the best performers in sports.
Today ex-Yugoslav countries are better in team sports (handball, polo, voleyball, basketball) but Romania was, and still is, better in individual sports (athletics, gymnastics, wrestling, box, canoe/kayak, fencing, weightlifting, judo).


----------



## robbery4774

AR.BN said:


> Are you serious:lol:?
> 
> Romania has more Olympic medals then Yugoslavia+Croatia+Serbia+Slovenia+Bosnia+Macedonia+Greece. It's a fact.
> Considering population, I think Romania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Cuba are the best performers in sports.
> Today ex-Yugoslav countries are better in team sports (handball, polo, voleyball, basketball) but Romania was, and still is, better in individual sports (athletics, gymnastics, wrestling, box, canoe/kayak, fencing, weightlifting, judo).


This is past! 
In these days Romania are very poor in sport. What a shame

Considering population i guess germany (80.000) is the most successful nation. Number 1 winter olympic, summer olympic nr. 3 close too big russia. 

football Nr. 2


Let's go back to 2020 Euro bid! 

i wish: 
1. italy
2. Irland & scotland & wales & northern ireland
3. turkey
4. germany

I guess spain or england focus more on wc


----------



## netgear67

AR.BN said:


> Are you serious:lol:?
> 
> Romania has more Olympic medals then Yugoslavia+Croatia+Serbia+Slovenia+Bosnia+Macedonia+Greece. It's a fact.
> Considering population, I think Romania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Cuba are the best performers in sports.
> Today ex-Yugoslav countries are better in team sports (handball, polo, voleyball, basketball) but Romania was, and still is, better in individual sports (athletics, gymnastics, wrestling, box, canoe/kayak, fencing, weightlifting, judo).


I sad *considering population*. And what you think is not relevant, but facts and statistics. And once more...considering population we are fourth greatest sport nation in the world and second in Europe.

Greatest sporting nation

Sports that Slovenia is on the top of the world by population:

First in Alpine Skiing, Judo. Second in Basketball, Snowboarding, Ski jumping, Canoe/Kayak Slalom, Climbing. Third in Artistic Gymnastics.

And please its obut Slovenia, not Balkan countries.

Comparing Romania and Slovenia without considering population is funny. But here you go. Romania 37th place. Slovenia 38th. Cheers. :cheers:


----------



## Gombos

guys, we are off-topic, please stick to candidates


----------



## Evil78

robbery4774 said:


> This is past!
> In these days Romania are very poor in sport. What a shame


What past? The past makes the statistics. 
Of course, every country has it's ups and downs, but let's not go so many years back, let's just take the last 3 Olympics (2000,2004,2008)...Romania got a total of 53 medals (of which 23 gold), being well in front of countries like Canada, Spain, Brazil, etc.etc... And there are chances for other medals in London as well...(which, in a few months, will also be "in the past", but the medals remain )

Now let's not forget what the main subject of this thread is. (we don't want to be the leading sports nation of the planet :nuts:, we only want to organize a European football championship..."in the future" :lol: )


----------



## Evil78

netgear67 said:


> I sad *considering population*. And what you think is not relevant, but facts and statistics. And once more...considering population we are fourth greatest sport nation in the world and second in Europe.
> 
> Greatest sporting nation
> 
> Sports that Slovenia is on the top of the world by population:
> 
> First in Alpine Skiing, Judo. Second in Basketball, Snowboarding, Ski jumping, Canoe/Kayak Slalom, Climbing. Third in Artistic Gymnastics.
> 
> And please its obut Slovenia, not Balkan countries.
> 
> Comparing Romania and Slovenia without considering population is funny. But here you go. Romania 37th place. Slovenia 38th. Cheers. :cheers:


Yeah, and according to that ranking, China is almost the last nation in the world :lol:!!! If they would win *all the medals* (and i mean ALL) put in play at all the Olympics and World Championships, and they still wouldn't overtake Slovenia. :lol: 

Anyway....About Euro 2020 please! About football infrastructure and building stadiums.


----------



## andydirk

England!!!


----------



## URSUS

www.sercan.de said:


> Haha, 8-0 thing. Just look at that week. Even a 1-0 would have been enough for Galatasaray winning the league. And just 2 weeks before Ankaragücü lost to Besiktas at home 6-0.
> About 2006. Denizli would have be an idiot if they do not win the match. Otherwise they would have been relegated.
> Leverkusen also lost the title in the last week several times.
> And its not about winning the derby. Its about having the most points.
> 
> 
> And you really think UEFA and FIFA won't punish Turkey? :|
> Everything is clear. Its just an evil conspiracies by GS :lol:


I really don't wanna hijack this thread but I can't hapl myself so here goes.

Its almost impossible to get more points when your rivals that you utterly destroy and humiliate somehow miraculously(!) manage to easily win against all of the smaller outfits in the league.

You know and I know that Fener is worth more Financially than GS, BJK, and TS put together. 2-3 more CL spots and championships for Fener over the last 5-6 years (and we deserved it) would mean an insurmountable difference in financial power between the teams. The whole system was (and is) rigged against us in order to keep the league competitive. When GS was in a deep hole financially the establishment found new and perhaps more fitting favourites.

Do you really think Bursaspor for example won the league fair and square. Honestly? You think it has nothing to do with them being a pious Anatolian team from one of AKP's strongholds. We saw their quality in the CL. We saw how the same players performed in the following years. Now hooray for the new Govt. Team Trabzon!

Back to Galatasaray! Denizli and Ankaragucu are just 2 examples in a sea of match fixing. (A court case about Denizli is being prepared by the way so you should watch out!) The whole Haluk Ulusoy (GS fanatic TFF president) era in which GS broke records in scoring last minute goals after unexplcably long injury times. While we were busy braking records for most consecutive league games without being awarded a penalty is a whole other story. 

Being a Galatasaray fan and accusing about match fixing... Talk about throwing stones in a glass house. In all honesty EVERY team in Turkey has definitely been involved in match fixing one time or another but Galatasaray pretending to be clean is just ridiculous. You are like a pornstar pretending to be a nun. :lol: You might fool some people but you don't have to pretend in front of us. You're husband knows whats up. We love you no matter what. ahahaha

Now back to the impact on the Euro bid. The case is in court, the teams involved will be relegated, get points deducted if they are found guilty. And UEFA will accept the outcome of the court case. That's how it should be in a country with the rule of law. Look at Juve today asking for a 150 odd million euros from the Italian FA and it seems like the judges/prosecutors were not so impartial after all. Do you want that to happen in Turkey?

Besides, both the supporters and the board of Fener is asking for relegation if we are found guilty in a fair trial. It's all the small teams that are opposing it. They know that a Turkish league without Fener will kill their bottom line. TV subscriptions will plummet etc...

Anyway can't stop wondering what good a Euro is when the level of football in the country and you're national team is shit anyway. I have nothing against infrastructure projects but the government should spend some of that stadium money on youth programs, build pitches for the public to play on and develop the game at the grassroots levels instead. Perhaps start PR campaigns aimed at motivating Turkish people and kids to play some football instead of only watching or talking about it despite having no knowledge of the game. We see what happens when clubs and towns with no footballing culture get huge state of the art stadiums like in Kayseri, the stadium is almost always empty. Then we could perhaps stop shamelessly raiding European countries for players with Turkish heritage and start producing some homegrown talent instead.


----------



## www.sercan.de

So you still think FB did not fixed the matches last year and everything is ok?
And you still say Ankara match was fixed. Why should they fixed that match. Please explain it to me.


----------



## Fenerbahce Sk

@sercan 

bilader tamam anladık galatasaraylısında biraz susarsan sevinirim 
ağzından düşmüyor fenerbahçe lafı 

I'm sorry for Turkish


----------



## robbery4774

please nobody is interested in turkish corrupt football! just leave it


----------



## www.sercan.de

Actually it has to to with turkish EURO bid.


----------



## kamadeva

If Turkey wins the bid have you guys settled on the cities to host?Which are they?Are there any in the less developed kurdish east?


----------



## robbery4774

kamadeva said:


> If Turkey wins the bid have you guys settled on the cities to host?Which are they?Are there any in the less developed kurdish east?


good question? 

Istanbul would have 4 stadiums with the new Besiktas, but i guess UEFA only wants 2 or 3 in a city. 

I guess Istanbul X3, Tranbzonspor, Bursaspor and two other


----------



## Jitem

istanbul, izmir, antalya, ankara, bursa, kayseri, trabzon i guess. maybe they can add one more city from the meditarrenean adana or mersin. i dont think there ll be cities from east and southeast.

i think beşiktaş cant have a new stadium soon they have financial probs. tt arena (istanbul), kadir has (kayseri) ready for now. bursa and trabzon u/c. the construction will start in mersin very soon to host the mediterranean games in 2013. i dont know the situation about ankara but current government aint like izmir and antalya.


----------



## www.sercan.de

IMO cities will be the same like at Euro 2016 bid.

1. Istanbul - Atatürk Olimpiyat Stadi
2. Istanbul - Türk Telekom Arena
3. Ankara - New Stadium
4. Izmir - New Stadium
5. Eskisehir - New Stadium
6. Antalya - New Stadium
7. Bursa - New Stadium
8. Konya - New Stadium
9. Kayseri - Kadir Has Stadi

Backup:
1. Trabzon - Akyazi Stadi
2. Adana - New Stadium

New Mersin stadium will be too small. Capacity is just 25,000


----------



## gladiatori

www.sercan.de said:


> IMO cities will be the same like at Euro 2016 bid.
> 
> 1. Istanbul - Atatürk Olimpiyat Stadi
> 2. Istanbul - Türk Telekom Arena
> 3. Ankara - New Stadium
> 4. Izmir - New Stadium
> 5. Eskisehir - New Stadium
> 6. Antalya - New Stadium
> 7. Bursa - New Stadium
> 8. Konya - New Stadium
> 9. Kayseri - Kadir Has Stadi
> 
> Backup:
> 1. Trabzon - Akyazi Stadi
> 2. Adana - New Stadium
> 
> New Mersin stadium will be too small. Capacity is just 25,000


I have a question. In bid for Euro 2016, which were the cities and stadiums in Turkey?


----------



## eagle in sky

A bad news for Turkey.

Beşiktaş JK president Yıldırım Demirören is a candidate for election of Turkish Football Federation's president.Beşiktaş is mentioned in the corruption scandal and Beşiktaş's coach was serving time for corruption scandal.He was released from prison 2 monts ago.

Besides,Yıldırım Demirören said " Turkish Football Federation should imposes no penalty on which teams be mentioned in the corruption scandal.In neccesery,Turkish clubs don't participate to European cups and we should fight with UEFA.


----------



## oxo

www.sercan.de said:


> IMO cities will be the same like at Euro 2016 bid.
> 
> 1. Istanbul - Atatürk Olimpiyat Stadi
> 2. Istanbul - Türk Telekom Arena
> 3. Ankara - New Stadium
> 4. Izmir - New Stadium
> 5. Eskisehir - New Stadium
> 6. Antalya - New Stadium
> 7. Bursa - New Stadium
> 8. Konya - New Stadium
> 9. Kayseri - Kadir Has Stadi
> 
> Backup:
> 1. Trabzon - Akyazi Stadi
> 2. Adana - New Stadium
> 
> New Mersin stadium will be too small. Capacity is just 25,000


This is very detailed - you know all the cities that will host the Euro in 2020.
Wow!
I have a question. What will the prices of kebabs be at the different stadiums?
For example will a kebab in Istanbul cost much more than in Konya? What do UEFA have to say on this matter?


----------



## Messi

Kebab in a stadium, what?


----------



## RobH

---


----------



## PaulFCB

Messi said:


> Kebab in a stadium, what?


 Maybe they serve saorma in some stadiums like they sell hot dogs on American stadiums.


----------



## mopper

This time must me Balkan country/countries. To give 2016 to France was wrong and off course because of Platini. The smaller countries need to build new arenas, to make a good infrastructure and etc. The wealthiest countries have already stadiums, lest see something different - Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary and Serbia.


----------



## romaz

mopper said:


> This time must me Balkan country/countries. To give 2016 to France was wrong and off course because of Platini. The smaller countries need to build new arenas, to make a good infrastructure and etc. The wealthiest countries have already stadiums, lest see something different - Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary and Serbia.


 



Its about to happen, its call Euro 2012!


----------



## michał_

romaz said:


> Its about to happen, its call Euro 2012!


Last time I checked Poland and Ukraine were nowhere in the Balkans. Nor were we 'smaller countries', as mentioned by mopper. I would actually agree with him if it wasn't for the fact that Turkey sounds stronger than any Balkan bid I can imagine. And in the upcoming selection they will only be stronger than they were in 2011, when lost to France by 1 vote.


----------



## romaz

michał_;88852251 said:


> Last time I checked Poland and Ukraine were nowhere in the Balkans. Nor were we 'smaller countries', as mentioned by mopper. I would actually agree with him if it wasn't for the fact that Turkey sounds stronger than any Balkan bid I can imagine. And in the upcoming selection they will only be stronger than they were in 2011, when lost to France by 1 vote.


 


Was refering about the something different part. Instead of UEFA chosing a safe usual big destination such as Germany, Italy etc, they went for something different in Ukraine and Poland. But like you I believe Euro 2020 will go to Turkey.


----------



## alwn

oxo said:


> This is very detailed - you know all the cities that will host the Euro in 2020.
> Wow!
> I have a question. What will the prices of kebabs be at the different stadiums?
> For example will a kebab in Istanbul cost much more than in Konya? What do UEFA have to say on this matter?


what a good joke.. almost laughing
Probably UEFA will forbid ox to eat kebab in the stadium


----------



## michał_

eagle in sky said:


> A bad news for Turkey.
> 
> Beşiktaş JK president Yıldırım Demirören is a candidate for election of Turkish Football Federation's president.Beşiktaş is mentioned in the corruption scandal and Beşiktaş's coach was serving time for corruption scandal.He was released from prison 2 monts ago.
> 
> Besides,Yıldırım Demirören said " Turkish Football Federation should imposes no penalty on which teams be mentioned in the corruption scandal.In neccesery,Turkish clubs don't participate to European cups and we should fight with UEFA.


That is no bad news. Similar issues were raised concerning Polish and Ukrainian football authorities and look where we are


----------



## hater

Georgia, Azerbaijan to bid to host Euro 2020

Georgia and Azerbaijan are to make a joint bid to host the European Football Championship in 2020.
Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili announced the plans during a speech to the Azerbaijani parliament, the Milli Majlis, today.
He began a visit to Baku yesterday, accompanied by several ministers, including the minister of sport.
Elsewhere in his speech, the Georgian president stressed the history of close relations between Georgia and Azerbaijan, Gun.Az reported.
“We are united by strategic cooperation and centuries of ongoing friendship. Azerbaijan and Georgia have experienced similar problems throughout history," Saakashvili said.
"We have been together in victory and in defeat – both to Christians and Muslims. The independence of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic was first declared in Tbilisi in 1918.”
“A flag once raised will never fall!” Saakashvili said in Azerbaijani, the motto of Mammad Amin Rasulzade, one of the founding fathers of the first Azerbaijan Democratic Republic.
Saakashvili said that after a great struggle, Azerbaijan and Georgia had declared their independence again.
“Neither of the two nations will ever give up their independence, even if it’s the plan of Russia.”
Introducing the Georgian president to MPs, Milli Majlis Chairman Ogtay Asadov said that the friendship of the Azerbaijani and Georgian people had an ancient history. He said that both countries had suffered from separatism.
News.Az


----------



## Laurence2011

Sounds like an interesting bid, do we have any ideas of host cities/stadia?


----------



## hater

apparently Azerbaijan against the Bid for Euro 202 and wants to keep its focus on 2020 Olympics 
Georgian president just proposed an idea for Georgia and Azerbaijan to bid for Euro


----------



## Kernowboy71

The big shadow hovering over the 2020 hosts must be the 2020 Olympics.

With Istanbul bidding to be the hosts, can Turkey actually organise an Olympic games as well as a 24 team football tournament within 2 months of each other. Likewise, I would like to see Spain bid as they've never really held the Euro's (except for 1964 with 4 teams), but with Madrid a leading candidate for the Olympics, could Spain host both? With Italy, they have dropped their Rome Olympic bid, but can they now say we don't have the money for that, but we do for Euro2020?

With the move to 24 teams and the problems that the Euro2012 organisers have had, a safe bid could come from a surprising source ......GERMANY

Germany have never held the Euros .... West Germany did in 1988.

They've got no aspirations to host the World Cup and the Euros are almost as good.

They've got the money and more importantly all of the stadia already in place to host the games. In fact some stadia such as Stuttgart have been improved further since the World Cup. If certain cities did not want to participate, there are others such as Dusseldorf and Monchengladbach who would happily step up.

And there are some suggestions that Germany will go for it

http://de.fifa.com/worldfootball/news/newsid=1594176.html


----------



## www.sercan.de

I think Germany is not interested in EURO 2020.


----------



## Kernowboy71

Venues for a Germany 2020

Berlin Olympic Stadium - 74,000 seats
Dortmund Signal Iduna Park - 67,000 seats
Munich Allianz Arena - 66,000 seats
Stuttgart - the new Mercedes Benz Arena - 60,441 seats
Gelsenkirchen Veltins Arena - 53,804 seats
Hamburg Imtech Arena - 51,500 seats
Frankfurt Commerzbank Arena - 48,132 seats
Koln Rhein Enegie Stadion - 46,134 seats
Hannover AWD Arena - 44,652 seats
Leipzig Zentralstadion - 44,199 seats
Kaiserslauteren Fritz Walter Stadium - 43,450 seats
Nuremburg Easy Credit Stadion -41,926 seats

10 stadiums for a tournament which requires 9 grounds minimum and 3 reserves.

Additional stadiums that could be considered include

Dusseldorf Esprit Arena - 51,500 seats
Monchegladbach Borussia Park - 46,249 seats
Bremen - Weserstadion - 38,000 seats

Probably unbeatable


----------



## RobH

> With Istanbul bidding to be the hosts, can Turkey actually organise an Olympic games as well as a 24 team football tournament within 2 months of each other.


Of course they can't. The IOC has first dibs though, so if they choose Istanbul Turkey can forget the Euros.

Nevermind the technical and logistical challenge - one which few countries could ever meet. The IOC won't want Turkey to be hosting the Euros in the same summer as their Games. And depending on timing, it will almost certainly be the case that hosting the Euros that Summer breaks the IOC Host City Contract.

If Istanbul wins the 2020 Olympics I fully expect any Euros bid to be shelved.


----------



## Laurence2011

www.sercan.de said:


> I think Germany is not interested in EURO 2020.


According to Wikipedia, Germany have signalled their interest. If it's true then I'm getting fully behind it! :cheers1:


----------



## DinoVonZvreca.

del


----------



## cornelinho

Laurence2011 said:


> According to Wikipedia, Germany have signalled their interest. If it's true then I'm getting fully behind it! :cheers1:


Wikipedia ?!?!

this euro has more bids then the olympics ... when in histories did this ever happed ?


----------



## www.sercan.de

Laurence2011 said:


> According to Wikipedia, Germany have signalled their interest. If it's true then I'm getting fully behind it! :cheers1:


You are right. DFB said it last week (4th march). But its not official.


----------



## MS20

Germany...bah. We know theyd host a a great tournament. But euros should be about developing infrastructure, and germany has just about peaked infrastructurally.


----------



## Laurence2011

^^ true, but they have never hosted it before (as unified germany)


----------



## parcdesprinces

MS20 said:


> But euros should be about developing infrastructure


They maybe should, but it is not always the case, e.g. : Euro '92, Euro '96, Euro 2000, Euro 2008 (the Austrian stadiums)...

Even in France, most of new stadiums/refurbishments were already planned long before we were candidate to host the Euro 2016 (not to mention the SdF which is ready, as well as all the non-sporting infrastructures).


----------



## OwnTheNight

If Istanbul wins the Olympic Games 2020 then Azerbaijan/Georgia should get the tournament.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

I think Germany should be interested in hosting the EURO, it's excellent business. People know Germans are good at organizing so the whole thing would certainly be a major success. That being said, I support Turkey for 2020. 

---

This may be just in my head, but I noticed that since 2000 it could be said that the there is a pattern to the way the EURO was awarded to bidding countries: a developed country, then a developing country. 2000 was Belgium & Netherlands (developed), 2004 was Portugal (maybe not "developing", but still less developed), 2008 was Austria & Switzerland (developed), 2012 was Poland & Ukraine (developing) and 2016 was France (developed). If this pattern is not coincidental, then 2020 should be the year of a developing country, and Turkey would be the best fit. What do you all think about this?


----------



## GEwinnen

OwnTheNight said:


> If Istanbul wins the Olympic Games 2020 then Azerbaijan/Georgia should get the tournament.


Azerbijan? Georgia?? A small part of Turkey is in EUROPE and the most important city -Istanbul- is the only mega-city on two continents.
Yes, I'd like a turkish Euro 2020.

Azerbijan and Georgia are in Asia (100%), a E*U*R*O in Asia would be rediculous!! 
This bid will have NO chance!!


----------



## hater

GEwinnen said:


> Azerbijan? Georgia?? A small part of Turkey is in EUROPE and the most important city -Istanbul- is the only mega-city on two continents.
> Yes, I'd like a turkish Euro 2020.
> 
> Azerbijan and Georgia are in Asia (100%), a E*U*R*O in Asia would be rediculous!!
> This bid will have NO chance!!


wrong
go look at the map of Europe


----------



## bicho84

GEwinnen said:


> Azerbijan? Georgia?? A small part of Turkey is in EUROPE and the most important city -Istanbul- is the only mega-city on two continents.
> Yes, I'd like a turkish Euro 2020.
> 
> Azerbijan and Georgia are in Asia (100%), a E*U*R*O in Asia would be rediculous!!
> This bid will have NO chance!!


Do you ever have seen at map? Geo/Azer aren't in EU but they definetly are continental europe.The border of europe and asia.


----------



## SpicyMcHaggis

Azerbaijan and Georgia? No thanks. Too far for traveling fans.

Germany or Scandinavian joint bid.


----------



## parcdesprinces

SpicyMcHaggis said:


> Azerbaijan and Georgia? No thanks. Too far for traveling fans.


+1 !


----------



## hater

SpicyMcHaggis said:


> Azerbaijan and Georgia? No thanks. Too far for traveling fans.
> 
> Germany or Scandinavian joint bid.


just 5 hours away from Germany =)


----------



## SpicyMcHaggis

Yea right.. Ukraine (Poland will do good) will be enough of a bust in terms of ticketless traveling fans. Even the ticket sales in Ukraine are poor because of hard access and extremely high airline fees. 

No need for another tournament like that. 2008 was perfect in those terms. Fans were everywhere. 2016 will be fantastic as well.


----------



## Laurence2011

SpicyMcHaggis said:


> Azerbaijan and Georgia? No thanks. Too far for traveling fans.
> 
> Germany or Scandinavian joint bid.


+1! 

Deutschland immer! ;D


----------



## GEwinnen

bicho84 said:


> Do you ever have seen at map? Geo/Azer aren't in EU but they definetly are continental europe.The border of europe and asia.



:bash::bash:


----------



## BaKuCiTy

warum Deutschalnd immer? warum seit ihr alle so geizig?

Azerbaijan and Georgia are part of Europe! if u look at the map, then u will see that part of Georgia and Azerbaijan are in Europe! the north of the two countries, big Caucas, and the small Caucas is in Asia! its like Ural, geographically its in Europe!


----------



## Laurence2011

BaKuCiTy said:


> warum Deutschalnd immer? warum seit ihr alle so geizig?
> 
> Azerbaijan and Georgia are part of Europe! if u look at the map, then u will see that part of Georgia and Azerbaijan are in Europe! the north of the two countries, big Caucas, and the small Caucas is in Asia! its like Ural, geographically its in Europe!


Das war nur mein unterstützung für Deutschland. ich denke nicht das deutschland ist das beste land der welt!


----------



## Colm Flynn

Azerbaijan and Georgia is an interesting bid, though due to the instability of the region (politically) due you think this will affect the bid, also it not that easy to travel to those countries.

And for all the talk about not being in europe etc...Both Georgia and Azerbaijan have land in europe (north of the caucasus mountains) and more importantly are both members of Uefa so they are allowed to bid, heck even Kazakhstan has land in europe (it's western most part is west of the ural mountains). As long as you are a member of uefa you are allowed to bid for tournaments.

Personally I would like to see Turkey get it, never hosted a tournament before, has good climate, it's a single bid which I like and the turks are extremley passionate for football plus lots of tourists visit turkey every year so travel won't be a problem.


----------



## SpicyMcHaggis

Turkey would be a lot better. Easy access for everyone with cheap airlines. Hell.. even doable with a car for half of the continent. Not to mention piss cheap ferries and cruises. 

Established tourist infrastructure, good grounds. Certainly a good option compared to the Caucas bid.

As for the Asia vs Europe nonsense.. if the country is a member of UEFA its really not an issues. They have every right to host it.


----------



## www.sercan.de

SpicyMcHaggis said:


> good grounds.



Actually not really.

Currently only 1 stadiums is ready for a Euro 2016. (TT Arena).
Kayseri Kadir Has has to be modernised and Timsah Arena will be ready in 2-3 years.
Rest just proposed projects.


----------



## SpicyMcHaggis

We are talking 8 years from now  Lots of time to finish up those projects. 

Already now you have Atatürk (which would get renovated i guess) but even without that one you could use TT and Fener Arena. Kayseri is certainly good enough as well.

2x Istanbul, Kayseri, Bursa, Trabzon, Ankara, Izmir, Eskisehir? Maybe those 8 as host cities?


----------



## www.sercan.de

Yes, but still just projects 
As far as i know Fener stadium cannot host a Euro. No free space and not enough car parking


----------



## BaKuCiTy

Turkey is the BEST choice for EURO 2020!
i hope they will get it! its so unfair that till now no Euro in Turkey!


----------



## BaKuCiTy

and for the stadiums its not a problem for Turkey!


----------



## Colm Flynn

Considering the Sukru Saracoglu stadium hosted the europa league final a couple of years ago, strange that they won't be allowed to host games in a european championship.


----------



## www.sercan.de

Yes, because they promised to destroy the school behind the stadium and to built a car parking there.
But nothing happened and they had problems to find enough space for Media cars.


----------



## GEwinnen

BaKuCiTy said:


> warum Deutschalnd immer? warum seit ihr alle so geizig?
> 
> Azerbaijan and Georgia are part of Europe! if u look at the map, then u will see that part of Georgia and Azerbaijan are in Europe! the north of the two countries, big Caucas, and the small Caucas is in Asia! its like Ural, geographically its in Europe!


We're not geizig (I guess you meant "gierig" = greedy), if the UEFA will award the EURO 2020 to the UEFA-members Georgia & Azer, the EURO 2020 will take place in Azer & Georgia!! They won't ask me:nuts:!


----------



## Mr.Underground

BaKuCiTy said:


> Turkey is the BEST choice for EURO 2020!
> i hope they will get it! its so unfair that till now no Euro in Turkey!


I'd prefer ISTANBUL 2020.


----------



## prahovaploiesti

If Baku gets the Summer Olympics in 2020 the Euro is out of the question.
Turkey has the best chances.
As a romanian I say that plans for an Euro in Romania can't be done by 2028.
We need infrastructure, and most of all people who understand that if you build a new stadium you have to manage it too, so you don't have to change the turf 3 or 4 times a year.


----------



## Gombos

prahovaploiesti said:


> If Baku gets the Summer Olympics in 2020 the Euro is out of the question.
> Turkey has the best chances.
> As a romanian I say that plans for an Euro in Romania can't be done by 2028.
> We need infrastructure, and most of all people who understand that if you build a new stadium you have to manage it too, so you don't have to change the turf 3 or 4 times a year.


:lol: what infrastucture has Ukraine? Poland did not complete all the motorways. by 2016-2018 all roads here perfect. :lol: Baku? you must be kidding me. people like you would host it only if we would be Germany level.  I agree Turkey is more prepared because they have more money, big resources, and already with a background not like Azer. but we should candidate for 2020, to be prepared for 2024! 2024 is a very realistic term.

Azerbaijan and Georgia are funny possible candidates, no offence. and no tradition in football, especially the first one!


----------



## BaKuCiTy

u think Azerbaijan dont have money? if we get Olympic games, the government will inviste too much money! we have enough resources for it! and for euro its the same! we will also inviste in Georgia, like we do it now!


----------



## hater

Gombos said:


> :lol: what infrastucture has Ukraine? Poland did not complete all the motorways. by 2016-2018 all roads here perfect. :lol: Baku? you must be kidding me. people like you would host it only if we would be Germany level.  I agree Turkey is more prepared because they have more money, big resources, and already with a background not like Azer. but we should candidate for 2020, to be prepared for 2024! 2024 is a very realistic term.
> 
> Azerbaijan and Georgia are funny possible candidates, no offence. and no tradition in football, especially the first one!


are you kidding?
the government spent over 5 billion on new highways in just couple years 
Baku is growing rapidly 
if we get olympics the government will spend over 20 billion


----------



## prahovaploiesti

Gombos said:


> I agree Turkey is more prepared because they have more money, big resources, and already with a background not like Azer.


Azerbaidjan could host the Olympics, as for the Euro not a chance.
Yes Turkey has more money than Azerbaidjan, but they can find extra resources.
Do not underestimate them.


----------



## eagle in sky

There are those who suppose that Azerbaycan is a poor country :lol:
They don't know Azrerbaycan's oil and gas sources.


----------



## SpicyMcHaggis

Its not about being poor or rich. Its about the ability to host something. 

Lichtenstein is rich too.. and you don't see them hosting everything


----------



## GEwinnen

Wow, Azer (FIFA rank 114) and Georgia (rank 74) are "football giants", they wouldn't gain a single point! I hope the UEFA will not sell a competition like Fifa did!!


----------



## BaKuCiTy

whats the problem?
yes we are bad in football and now?
it will developpe football in all country, we also want to host to attire young people to have more interrest to football in our country.


----------



## BaKuCiTy

SpicyMcHaggis said:


> Its not about being poor or rich. Its about the ability to host something.
> 
> Lichtenstein is rich too.. and you don't see them hosting everything


why u think that we are not capable to host euro? we could do it better than other countries if we get it. we have the wish, we have money and we are capable!


----------



## SpicyMcHaggis

BaKuCiTy said:


> why u think that we are not capable to host euro? we could do it better than other countries if we get it. we have the wish, we have money and we are capable!


No cheap airliners, no road access.. very remote geo location, visa issues for many of the countries. 

Sorry.. but no. 

For developing football there are u21 euro etc. 

Euro is global event that shouldn't be used as trial tournament for developing football nations. 

Im traditionalist and i want the Euro to be only in country where everyone can go easily and where the "spirit" of football is already present and established. In 2008 there was like a million (and even more on the match day) ticketless fans all over the place. Would that be possible in remote location like Caucaus? Sorry but no. Its just too damn expensive to get there for everyone in the Europe. 

Euro isn't about the stadiums. I'm sure you'd build brilliant ones. Its about the entire spirit... and without that we would get just random generic football event. Stuff that happens outside of the grounds is what makes big tournaments so great.

That bid would just be.. improvisation. Especially when you have someone like Turkey which could easily do and have everything i mentioned above. I can fly to Istanbul for piss cheap price from absolutely anywhere in the Europe. Hotel infrastructure is immense.. Azerbaijan and especially Georgia are shockingly bad in those terms. Its easier to get to Sydney for most of the Europeans than to Tbilisi.


----------



## BaKuCiTy

visa yes but the Azeris have then also the right to go easily to Europe, we can make it but not for one way. and for the road, acces, infrastructure in general, u dont know & u r talking, its much better and going be better and better than in some countries of Europe.
for the cheap airlines, u r right but it can be changed also, cause there are many years for us! there will be cheap airlines and u can cheap there, we need time for it.


----------



## GEwinnen

BaKuCiTy said:


> whats the problem?
> yes we are bad in football and now?
> it will developpe football in all country, we also want to host to attire young people to have more interrest to football in our country.



A host nation should be able to compete at a decent level in the tournament!


----------



## IanCleverly

National associations have until 15th May 2012 to get their bids in:-



UEFA.com Press Release said:


> The UEFA Executive Committee completed its two-day meeting in Istanbul today and decided on the bidding process for UEFA EURO 2020. An invitation will be sent out to all 53 UEFA member associations, outlining minimum criteria in terms of number and capacity of stadiums, and the national associations will have until 15 May to declare their interest in hosting the 24-team final tournament.
> 
> If only one expression of interest is received, UEFA would then proceed with collecting all necessary guarantees with the aim of confirming the hosts. Should more associations declare their interest, UEFA would then launch an 18-month bidding process allowing for candidates to elaborate the bid dossiers. A detailed timeline and bidding process would be developed, and a decision on the hosts would be scheduled for the end of 2013/beginning of 2014.


Full news story Here


----------



## Laurence2011

Well Gibraltar have moved closer to becoming a UEFA member, so I fully expect them to present a strong bid.


----------



## Kadıkoylu

Platini said that he d vote for Turkey for 2020, in UEFA meeting today


----------



## mopper

Bulgaria and Romania will make joint bid until May this year.


----------



## robbery4774

2020 i hope for italy. They need a push for modernization


----------



## Chimiste

> Erdogan launches Turkish bid to host Euro 2020
> (AFP) –
> 
> ISTANBUL — Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Thursday urged UEFA to award his country the right to host the 2020 European football championships.
> "Give us Euro 2020," said Erdogan at the end of his address before the UEFA Congress here.
> Turkey lost the bid to host Euro 2016 which was awarded to France.
> And UEFA member countries now have from next Monday until May 15 to officially lodge their bid to host the 2020 edition.
> "We're catching up in terms of infrastructure," said Erdogan, who announced the construction of 18 new stadia across the country.
> "Turkey has a young population, half of whom are aged under 30. Turkey has great potential on the economic and sporting fronts," the Prime Minister continued.
> "Turkey is a country which adores football, where there are many fans," added Erdogan, a keen footballer in his youth whose parents did not want him to pursue his dream of becoming a professional player.
> "My father was right and I chose another path, but I learned a lot from football, I learned coordination, solidarity, to share, to pass the ball, to establish eye contact, communicate, and to speak from the heart."
> Meanwhile UEFA president Michel Platini said he would vote for Turkey to host the tournament if they did not win the bid to host the 2020 Olympic Games.
> "Turkey had a strong dossier for 2016, it will be even stronger in 2020, the only slight problem is that Istanbul will be a candidate to host the Olympic Games ... it's maybe a bit too much, but if Istanbul don't have the Olympics I would vote for Turkey."
> While Turkey is bidding to host the Euro, the country has been urged by UEFA to deal quickly with a domestic match-fixing scandal that has seen 93 people, including the president of Fenerbahce, charged with rigging matches in the 2010-2011 season.
> UEFA general secretary Gianni Infantino said Wednesday: "It is up to the competent bodies of the Turkish football federation (TFF) to take the necessary disciplinary measures.
> "Once the TFF has made a decision we'll be keeping a close eye on this affair, whether the right decisions have been taken or not."


http://www.google.com/hostednews/af...docId=CNG.5e5df8e9734ae9cf7809e21b5c15e385.b1

Like Michel Platini, we are numerous in France hoping for a turkish host 
It looks good for Turkey...


----------



## alexandru.mircea

Good luck Turkey.


----------



## Fizmo1337

I think Platini is gonna make up for the previous 2016 bid that France won (through bribing) and let Turkey win the bid for euro 2020. I'm sure he feels sorry that the cheated because he knew Turkey actually deserved it. Only France needed those new stadiums to make the french ligue more competitive in Europe again because at that time French teams were awful + nobody watches french ligue because of the bad stadiums.

And you just know that the country that has Platini's support will probably get it. Also, there aren't any other major bids that can compete with Turkey's bid. I think Turkey will get euro 2020 in an easy & comfortable way.

But the turkish will have to choose between the olympics and the euro. Organising both in the same year is a bit too much (ok, I know Brazil has WC & olympics within 2 years but that doesn't happen a lot).


----------



## adeaide




----------



## eomer

Turkiiish said:


> OFFICIAL CANDIDAT
> 
> TURKEY
> GEORGIA


Humm...I have nothing against Georgia but...
So, Turkey 2020 is THE choice: sounds great.



High Mileager said:


> After Poland/Ukraine 2012, France 2016..Eastern Europe will be a logic alternative


Turkey is more logical and don"t forget that the country lost 7-6 the bid for Euro 2016. Turkey desserves it.


----------



## Turkiiish

OFFICIAL CANDIDAT

TURKEY 
GEORGIA
IRELAND - SCOTLAND - WALES - http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/may/14/scotland-wales-bid-euro-2020?CMP=twt_gu


----------



## Laurence2011

BREAKING NEWS:

Scotland and Wales could launch late bid !


----------



## Turkiiish

Scotland and Wales FAs may look to Ireland to aid Euro 2020 bid

http://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2012/0515/320958-ireland-may-become-part-of-three-way-bid/


----------



## oxo

As I explained a month or two ago - the most exciting proposals will be tri-nation bids. 
For example Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia together could be an interesting bid as well.

The days of one or two nations bidding only will soon be gone or should soon be history for the Euro tournaments.


----------



## www.sercan.de

Scotland + Walres + Ireland sounds good.


----------



## Turkiiish

Turkey favorite !


----------



## Laurence2011

But do we know if NI will be allowed to host... or just the Republic?


----------



## jpgjohnnyg

The Celtic bid has arrived although some what late in the day. Why the heck could they not have thought about this months ago when it was obvious there was all sorts of corruption and match fixing issues in Turkey. At least they only have to express an interest by the deadline tomorrow and then they can try and sort out a decent bid over the coming months. If the bid is to go ahead it will require all 3 nations and will also need the help of the GAA in Ireland but if if they do get their act together it could be a great bid with some fantastic stadia. I posted many months ago about the stadia involved in a potential celtic bid - the main stumbling block I see is that there are 3 big stadia in Glasgow and 2 in Dublin and Im pretty sure UEFA want things spread out more.
A quick recap of possible venues

SCOTLAND

Glasgow 
Celtic Park 65000
Ibrox 50000
Hampden 50000

Edinburgh
Murrayfield (67000)

New stadia would be needed in Dundee and Aberdeen

WALES

Cardiff
Millenium stadium (75000)
Cardiff city (25000) would need slight upgrade

Swansea
Liberty stadium (25000) would need slight upgrade

IRELAND

Dublin
Aviva Satdium (55000)
Croke park (84000/77000 seated)

New 45000 seater stadium Pairc Ui Chaoimh is being built in Cork

Would require the upgrade of a couple more of the larger GAA stadia located around the country.

Personally I think it can be done and all 3 countries have great infratructure with good connections between the countries and they also have good track records for holding big events the big draw back is the no can do attitude that a lot of the people and politicians will have


----------



## jpgjohnnyg

Sorry one other point I cant see NI joining as realistically they can only offer the redeveloped Windsor park which is too small, a new 45000 GAA stadium is being built in Belfast but still one suitable ground isnt likely to add much to the bid unfortunately


----------



## www.sercan.de

Croke Park - 76,500 - Dublin - IRL
Millennium Stadium - 74,500 - Cardiff - WAL
Murrayfield Stadium - 67,800- Edinburgh - SCO
Hampden Park - 52,063 - Glasgow - SCO
Aviva Stadium - 51,700 - Dublin - IRL
Ibrox Stadium - 51,082 - Glasgow - SCO 
Páirc Uí Chaoimh - 45,000 - Cork - IRL 
Cardiff City Stadium - 26,828 - Cardiff - WAL (temporary expansion: 30,000+)
Liberty Stadium - 20,532- Swansea - WAL (temporary expansion: 30,000+)


----------



## eomer

oxo said:


> As I explained a month or two ago - the most exciting proposals will be tri-nation bids.


I don"t agree with that: too many teams would be qualified without playing.


----------



## bigchrisfgb

eomer said:


> I don"t agree with that: too many teams would be qualified without playing.


You would have thought that only the 2 biggest players would be guaranteed qualification which would be Scotland and Wales. I can't see why Scotland don't go it alone. Surely the 3 existing stadiums in Glasgow, plus 2 (possibly 3 to include Murreyfield) redeveloped stadiums in Edinburgh, then a new stadium in Aberdeen, and a new/redeveloped stadium in Dundee should be enough.


----------



## jpgjohnnyg

With 24 teams thats nearly half the teams in Europe - I dont see any problem giving all 3 automatic qualification. I also think Ireland would end up contributing more grounds than Wales not to mention the fact that they are the only one of the 3 teams that qualifies now and again for the finals of the Euros or World cup so maybe a more important partner than you think! As for Scotland on their own - NO chance! Even if they were allowed all 3 grounds in Glasgow (which of course would never happen) they would still be way short!!!


----------



## lwa

jpgjohnnyg said:


> With 24 teams thats nearly half the teams in Europe - I dont see any problem giving all 3 automatic qualification. I also think Ireland would end up contributing more grounds than Wales not to mention the fact that they are the only one of the 3 teams that qualifies now and again for the finals of the Euros or World cup so maybe a more important partner than you think! As for Scotland on their own - NO chance! Even if they were allowed all 3 grounds in Glasgow (which of course would never happen) they would still be way short!!!


they may have qualified this year, but their record is hardly better than the others. Last World Cup 2002 (v 1998 for Scotland - but that was our 6th in 7 tournaments!). Last Euro's before this year 1988 (v 1996 for Scotland, and we were also there in 1992)

Scotland could probably just about have scraped a solo bid together for a 16 team tournament, but now it's gone up to 24 teams, it would be joint bids only


----------



## whatever...

oxo said:


> As I explained a month or two ago - the most exciting proposals will be tri-nation bids.
> For example Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia together could be an interesting bid as well.


*Never going to happen.* First of all, football falls behind in popularity to a number of sports, such as basketball, ice hockey and whatever they like there in Estonia. There's also the obvious lack of stadiums, as well as the willingness to build them. And last, but not the least - the level of our football national teams is appalling.


----------



## Fabri88

^^

The same was said about the United States bid for 1994 FIFA World Cup!

Estonia-Latvia-Lithuania don't have to be shy about making a bid, now for Euro 2024! UEFA asks 2 stadiums with 50.000 seats, 3 stadiums with 40.000 seats and 4 stadiums with 30.000 seats!

Three stadiums per country!


----------



## Turkiiish




----------



## jpgjohnnyg

Not going to argue with you IWA but Ireland have progressed from their group in all their world cup finals not to mention the fact that they have had the agony of missing out through the playoffs for Euro or World cup finals 5 times!!!


----------



## RobH

Platini, head of UEFA, voted for Qatar to host a World Cup. We're not really going to have a debate about any of the bidders' footballing credentials given this context are we?


----------



## fidalgo

curious to see Georgia's stadium proposals


----------



## Fizmo1337

Are both bids Scotland/Wales/Ireland & Georgia official already or just rumours?

Turkey will easy win this but just in case the corruption isn't tackled or they organise the olympics in istanbul or other stuff happens, there's the option that another country could/can host it! But realistically, Turkey will win this 99% sure. It's their 4th bid already, both others do it for the first time and Turkey's bid is just far superior then the other 2. There bid last time was for me better then the french & italian one. Plus if you read between the lines they have the backing of Platini. Probably he feels sorry for cheating Turkey during the last bidding process.


----------



## Turkiiish

Euro 2020 İçin Türkiye'ye 2 Rakip
Euro 2020'nin ev sahipliği için Türkiye dahil 3 aday yarışacak. İşte rakipler..

video http://www.trthaber.com/videolar/euro-2020-icin-turkiyeye-2-rakip-6833.html


----------



## cSaints

www.sercan.de said:


> Croke Park - 76,500 - Dublin - IRL
> Millennium Stadium - 74,500 - Cardiff - WAL
> Murrayfield Stadium - 67,800- Edinburgh - SCO
> Hampden Park - 52,063 - Glasgow - SCO
> Aviva Stadium - 51,700 - Dublin - IRL
> Ibrox Stadium - 51,082 - Glasgow - SCO
> Páirc Uí Chaoimh - 45,000 - Cork - IRL
> Cardiff City Stadium - 26,828 - Cardiff - WAL (temporary expansion: 30,000+)
> Liberty Stadium - 20,532- Swansea - WAL (temporary expansion: 30,000+)


Ahh I'm excited already. In terms of stadiums, there's clearly the capability to host the tournament. Uefa only requests 2 stadiums able to hold 50k, 3 with with 40k, and 4 with 30k. As well as those mentioned above, there's also Celtic Park which holds 60832, although I'm aware there may be some opposition to using three stadiums from one city. I think there may be a similar issue with Cardiff City's stadium, as it is located directly next to the Millennium Stadium.. Although I'm pretty sure there's already provisions in place for this because I think due to the Six Nations, the Wales Rugby team would probably have had home games at the same time as Cardiff at some point. Although Swansea would probably be a more likely candidate for expansion IMO if they are able to maintain premiership football because the demand for a bigger stadium will start to increase. One issue I can foresee is Ireland finding it difficult to negotiate terms to use Croke Park because the owners (Gaelic Athletic Association) are notoriously against it being used for Football. In recent years they've been more relaxed over the issue but I can still see them demanding a lot of money, and obviously it would be a massive loss not having Croke Park. I think the stadium in Cork is also a Gaelic Sport stadium, so this could have similar issues. New stadiums in Dundee and Aberdeen could be interesting projects.

In terms of infrastructure, I know there is already train lines that go straight through from Aberdeen and Edinburgh to Cardiff and I'm sure more direct services could be quite easily added to cope with demand, but I'm not sure how well linked the two countries are to Ireland. Aeroplane is probably the only feasible method of transport for fans getting to Ireland from Scotland/South Wales.

I seriously think this could be a great tournament though and relatively speaking not a huge amount needs to be done.


----------



## Turkiiish

New stadium (40.000 spectators) - BATUMI (Georgia)


----------



## cSaints

Where did you get this picture from? it looks great


----------



## vitaming

hater said:


> why would we want to waste our money on bidding when we already know Turkey will get it


They won't, they'll get the Olympics.



> Lado Vardzelashvili (pictured above), the Georgian Sports Minister, told a news conference that they would proceed with a solo bid after Azerbaijan decided to concentrate on Baku's campaign for the 2020 Olympics and Paralympics – ironically just like Turkey are being urged to do in the case of Istanbul.
> 
> "Azerbaijan has made a bid to host the Olympics so Georgia will continue bidding for Euro 2020 independently," Vardzelashvili was quoted as saying.


link

Like I said, the delusional Azeris think they have a better shot at the OG than the Euros.:nuts:


----------



## Fizmo1337

And even funnier is that Georgia goes further alone to bid for euro 2020 instead of retracking their bid ^^


----------



## Gannet!

The Wales/ Scotland/ Republic of Ireland bid is confirmed.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18069127

According to the link UEFA itself 'encouraged' the tri-nation bid.
With the BBC noteing that football in Turkey has been 'disgraced' they think that it may be a successful bid.

Let the stadium modernisation's begin!!!


----------



## Ulpia-Serdica

Turkey takes it, no matter what. They have tried several times, this time is the good one, they have well prepared for the bid. They deserve it.


----------



## RobH

> Turkey takes it, no matter what.


Agreed that they look like the strong frontrunnner Ulpia-Serdica. But if the IOC awards them the Olympics (*the IOC vote is before UEFA's*), then the Celtic bid looks like it ought to snatch the tournament. There's no way Turkey's getting both.

I don't know enough about Georgia's stadiums to comment on their bid but the fact they wanted to host with Azerbaijan suggests a project on their own would be a massive struggle.


----------



## jpgjohnnyg

Fizmo1337 said:


> Are both bids Scotland/Wales/Ireland & Georgia official already or just rumours?
> 
> Turkey will easy win this but just in case the corruption isn't tackled or they organise the olympics in istanbul or other stuff happens, there's the option that another country could/can host it! But realistically, Turkey will win this 99% sure. It's their 4th bid already, both others do it for the first time and Turkey's bid is just far superior then the other 2. There bid last time was for me better then the french & italian one. Plus if you read between the lines they have the backing of Platini. Probably he feels sorry for cheating Turkey during the last bidding process.


Not true Scotland and Ireland bid for 2008 and Scotland and Wales were all set to bid for 2016 until pulling out at the last moment. Turkey look strong on paper but the corruption and match fixing wont help look at the mess FIFA are in with Qatar and lets not forget UEFA approached the Celtic nations so maybe they are having second thoughts over Turkey after all not to mention the potential clash with the olympics!!


----------



## Fizmo1337

jpgjohnnyg said:


> Not true Scotland and Ireland bid for 2008 and Scotland and Wales were all set to bid for 2016 until pulling out at the last moment. Turkey look strong on paper but the corruption and match fixing wont help look at the mess FIFA are in with Qatar and lets not forget UEFA approached the Celtic nations so maybe they are having second thoughts over Turkey after all not to mention the potential clash with the olympics!!


Ok, sorry, thought they didn't put a bid in yet.

And your correct. Uefa contacted the FA's. The following quote is the most interesting one from the BBC article:


> But it appears that European football's governing body itself encouraged the joint bid from the Celtic nations, while Georgia have also now declared.


A clear message towards Turkey: if you don't tackle corruption, we got an alternative and we won't hesitate to pick the Celtic nations bid. Good way to put them under pressure and get things done tbh (from uefa's perspective). If Turkey was the only bid they wouldn't have anything to put them under pressure with. That said, at the moment UEFA will still go for the Turkey bid, I'm sure. It just all depends on what Turkey will do to tackle corruption and when Uefa will be satisfied with the taken measures. 

The celtic bid is a nice alternative though.

But with athens in 2004 and London in 2012, I don't think another european city will get the olympics in 2020. Three of the last 5 olympics would be too much for 1 continent so if the turkish FA uses their heads and take the necessary measures, they will have euro 2020.


----------



## tbilisky

Boris Paichadze stadium(Tbilisi). capacity- 55.000 





Lokomotiv stadium (Tbilisi) capacity-30.000





Batumi stadium accepted project capacity - 40.000


----------



## JYDA

If the Irish put forward 3 stadiums I think Croke would be the only GAA one. I see Thomond Park being most likely to be the other stadium in addition to Aviva. Thomond has open ends that could easily accomodate another 10k with temp stands. 

Obviously Wales would contribute the Millennium plus expanded stadiums in Swansea and Cardiff. 

As for the Scots it'll be interesting to see if they request permission to use all 3 Glasgow stadiums in the bid. After Qatar got the right to host a whole f***ing tournament in one city it doesn't seem like such an outrageous request. Failing that, I see them using an expanded or rebuilt Hampden, Murrayfield, a new stadium in either Aberdeen or Dundee, and one of the old firm stadiums.


----------



## jpgjohnnyg

How to split the competition between 3 countries if the Celtic bid gets the go ahead. Realistically I cant see where any new stadia could be built in Wales that would have a sustainable future so as a result Wales would have one group involving the Millenium stadium and liberty stadium &/or cardiff city. Dont worry Welsh fans I think the Millenium would be the front runner for the final. Ireland would probably have 2 groups with one group based in Dublin and one in the West coast based around Cork and Limerick. I think a 3rd group in Ireland would be relying too much on the GAA however the potential is there if needed to redevelop any number of GAA grounds that at least will be used in the future and not become ridiculous white elephants. Finally Scotland would need to support 3 groups, one based on the west coast around Glasgow, one around the East coast around Edinburgh and finally a Northern group based in Dundee and Aberdeen - Bring it on this might just work!


----------



## vitaming

> But with athens in 2004 and London in 2012, I don't think another european city will get the olympics in 2020.


It depends. In terms of pure geography perhaps, but Istanbul (and Constantinople before it) has always been a pivotal meeting place of east and west in a way that renders it transcendent of narrow cultural definitions like European or Middle Eastern. 

A Muslim majority city/country have never hosted and I think that will be one of the big factors in Istanbul's bid against the other two serious contenders, Tokyo and Madrid.


----------



## Mr.Underground

Turkey, no doubt.

But I'd like to see Istanbul 2020. At the same time I know that is impossible to have both the events. The problem is that Georgia is a very weak bid and I dislik the irish-welsh-scottish one.


----------



## bigchrisfgb

RobH said:


> Platini, head of UEFA, voted for Qatar to host a World Cup. We're not really going to have a debate about any of the bidders' footballing credentials given this context are we?


Yeah, Turkey with their corruption would probably in the front seat because of it.


----------



## www.sercan.de

> But it appears that European football's governing body itself encouraged the joint bid from the Celtic nations, while Georgia have also now declared.


Actually good tactic by the UEFA.
Currently UEFA cannot give the EURO to Turkey. Looks like there will be a new TFF board in some weeks.


----------



## Laurence2011

I can't really see any problems with using 3 stadiums in Glasgow... scotland's a fairly small place so what does it matter?


----------



## www.sercan.de

I think its not allowed by the UEFA/FIFA?!
Same problem at Turkey's Bids. Istanbul has got 4 stadiums with a capacity of over 30,000.

But as far as i know there are some "problems" (infrastructure) at Celtic Park. It was also the reason why they cannot bid for a Euro Final. (Source Stadionwelt magazine some years ago)


----------



## bigchrisfgb

www.sercan.de said:


> I think its not allowed by the UEFA/FIFA?!
> Same problem at Turkey's Bids. Istanbul has got 4 stadiums with a capacity of over 30,000.
> 
> But as far as i know there are some "problems" (infrastructure) at Celtic Park. It was also the reason why they cannot bid for a Euro Final. (Source Stadionwelt magazine some years ago)


Doesn't Celtic park has restricted views in the upper tiers because of pillars holding the roof up?


----------



## bigchrisfgb

www.sercan.de said:


> Actually good tactic by the UEFA.
> Currently UEFA cannot give the EURO to Turkey. Looks like there will be a new TFF board in some weeks.


UEFA are in a difficult position. FIFA a year or so ago were slated for being corrupt for giving the world cups to the two nations out of all the bids who should never have got them are renowned for being being corrupt/elitist nations. If UEFA then give the Euro's to a nation thats riddled with corruption within football then it's going to open up a whole can of worms.


----------



## www.sercan.de

Yes, but it lloks like we will have a new TFF president, because the UEFA will clean up the turkish football.
ANd honestly who cares about corruption, illegal things. The whole system is corrupt


----------



## Tallsmurf

www.sercan.de said:


> Croke Park - 76,500 - Dublin - IRL
> Millennium Stadium - 74,500 - Cardiff - WAL
> Murrayfield Stadium - 67,800- Edinburgh - SCO
> Hampden Park - 52,063 - Glasgow - SCO
> Aviva Stadium - 51,700 - Dublin - IRL
> Ibrox Stadium - 51,082 - Glasgow - SCO
> Páirc Uí Chaoimh - 45,000 - Cork - IRL
> Cardiff City Stadium - 26,828 - Cardiff - WAL (temporary expansion: 30,000+)
> Liberty Stadium - 20,532- Swansea - WAL (temporary expansion: 30,000+)


Millenium Stadium should be upgraded to 78,000 by then

Cardiff are already planning to increase their capacity to 35,000 in any case, so should not be a problem.

Swansea are talking about increasing theirs to 30,000 so this might bring things forward.

No other stadium comes even close in Wales - but for an outside bet, a temporary stadium at Parc Eiras in Colwyn Bay could be an interesting option


----------



## Fabri88

jpgjohnnyg said:


> How to split the competition between 3 countries if the Celtic bid gets the go ahead. Realistically I cant see where any new stadia could be built in Wales that would have a sustainable future so as a result Wales would have one group involving the Millenium stadium and liberty stadium &/or cardiff city. Dont worry Welsh fans I think the Millenium would be the front runner for the final. Ireland would probably have 2 groups with one group based in Dublin and one in the West coast based around Cork and Limerick. I think a 3rd group in Ireland would be relying too much on the GAA however the potential is there if needed to redevelop any number of GAA grounds that at least will be used in the future and not become ridiculous white elephants. Finally Scotland would need to support 3 groups, one based on the west coast around Glasgow, one around the East coast around Edinburgh and finally a Northern group based in Dundee and Aberdeen - Bring it on this might just work!


Three countries = Two groups each country

UEFA asks for 9 stadiums and so every country must provide 3 stadiums each.

These are the biggest stadiums in each country:

SCOTLAND:
• Edinburgh - Murrayfield - 67.800
• Glasgow - Celtic Park - 60.832
• Glasgow - Hampden Park - 52.063

WALES:
• Cardiff - Millennium - 74.500
• Cardiff - City Stadium - 26.828
• Swansea - Liberty - 20.532

IRELAND (non-GAA):
• Dublin - Lansdowne Road - 51.700
• Dublin - RDS Arena - 16.500 (seated)
• Limerick - Thomond Park - 15.100 (seated)

IRELAND (GAA):
• Dublin - Croke Park - 76.500 (seated)
• Castlebar - McHale Park - 42.000 (seated)
• Thurles - Semple - 36.000 (seated)

Scotland doesn't need any enlargement. Then I think Wales could cope with UEFA requests very well: their stadiums need a very little enlargement!

The real trouble is Ireland: if GAA allows association football to play on its grounds Ireland could already be considered able to host the Euro. If not then Ireland should project two new stadiums or enlarge Dublin's RDS Arena and Limerick's Thomond Park.

I think Limerick is also the best choice for the "other town 'cept the Capital": Shannon Airport is located just a few miles away! Otherwise Cork could be another good choice but in this case a brand new stadium should be built up!


----------



## Tallsmurf

Fabri88 said:


> Three countries = Two groups each country
> 
> UEFA asks for 9 stadiums and so every country must provide 3 stadiums each.
> 
> These are the biggest stadiums in each country:
> 
> SCOTLAND:
> • Edinburgh - Murrayfield - 67.800
> • Glasgow - Celtic Park - 60.832
> • Glasgow - Hampden Park - 52.063
> 
> WALES:
> • Cardiff - Millennium - 74.500
> • Cardiff - City Stadium - 26.828
> • Swansea - Liberty - 20.532
> 
> IRELAND (non-GAA):
> • Dublin - Lansdowne Road - 51.700
> • Dublin - RDS Arena - 16.500 (seated)
> • Limerick - Thomond Park - 15.100 (seated)
> 
> IRELAND (GAA):
> • Dublin - Croke Park - 76.500 (seated)
> • Castlebar - McHale Park - 42.000 (seated)
> • Thurles - Semple - 36.000 (seated)
> 
> Scotland doesn't need any enlargement. Then I think Wales could cope with UEFA requests very well: their stadiums need a very little enlargement!
> 
> The real trouble is Ireland: if GAA allows association football to play on its grounds Ireland could already be considered able to host the Euro. If not then Ireland should project two new stadiums or enlarge Dublin's RDS Arena and Limerick's Thomond Park.
> 
> I think Limerick is also the best choice for the "other town 'cept the Capital": Shannon Airport is located just a few miles away! Otherwise Cork could be another good choice but in this case a brand new stadium should be built up!


The RDS is a crap ground - Thormond Park is far better - doubtful if a permananet increase in capacity is justified, but temporary stands at each end would work

But really, GAA grounds are best solution - Cork would be good because of ferry connection to Wales


----------



## Ulpia-Serdica

I guess I was wrong...



> *UEFA announce new Euro 2020 bid*
> 
> UEFA have confirmed that countries will still be able to bid for Euro 2020 - even if they did not declare an interest before Tuesday's deadline.
> The declarations of interest were made before the deadline - from Scotland, Wales and the Republic of Ireland jointly, plus potential solo bids from Turkey and Georgia.
> 
> UEFA said they will now launch a new process which will allow any of the 53 member associations to submit a bid. The European body only confirmed that "some national associations" had expressed their interest in bidding but did not reveal any names of countries involved.
> 
> "UEFA will now launch a formal process which will allow any of its 53 members associations to submit their candidature, irrespective of whether or not they declared a preliminary interest in hosting the 24-team competition," said UEFA.
> 
> The bidding process will last approximately 18 months. A decision on the Euro 2020 hosts is expected at the beginning of 2014.
> 
> Scottish FA chief executive Stewart Regan has revealed that UEFA have put on record for the first time that they will consider bids for the European Championships from more than two countries as multiple tournament hosts.
> That assurance, and the enticing opportunity of a real chance in a bidding contest, led to Scotland, Wales and Ireland throwing their hat in the ring.
> Regan insisted there had been no attempt by UEFA to persuade the Celtic nations to declare an interest to prevent a situation where Turkey looked likely to be the only candidate.
> 
> He told the Press Association Sport: "The only encouragement was in the letter from UEFA that came out to all the associations with the acknowledgement that bids from more than two countries would be considered - that was the first time that had been put on record.
> 
> "It's now a case of deciding whether it's a goer or not. So far this is just an expression of interest."


http://www.google.com/hostednews/uk...agqbrnexsf3k1GXdw?docId=N0138611337160830734A


----------



## oxo

What about a Norway-Sweden-Denmark triple nation bid?

Or what about Hungary-Bulgaria-Romania?


----------



## Genç

What the hell? Why have they extended it?!


----------



## gmacruyff

vitaming said:


> In case you weren't aware, the are only five grounds in Wales and Scotland that currently meet Euro criteria. And three of those are in Glasgow.
> 
> An Azerbaijan-Georgia bid, as the Georgians were pushing for, could have been viable with Tbilisi's two venues, the new Baku stadiums and improvements to regional grounds like Kutaisi/Batumi/Lankaran etc. Infrastructure development is something UEFA looks at favourably, and both countries are obviously trying to establish themselves on the maps of westerners with lavish projects.


Its a joint venture,with the 3 CELTIC countries Scotland,Wales,Rep of Ireland,so immediately you have 7 stadiums that already meet the criteria.!


----------



## R.K.Teck

Aberdeen are in advanced planning stages of building a 22,000 seater stadium, I think this could be built to 30,000 and reduced after the Euros.

Celtic Park has restricted views, because the main stand is very low and has hige pillars at each end it blocks the view of many seats in the corners, and also the back rows of the 3 two tier stands are obstructed by roof pillars all the way round, it was not a UEFA 5 star stadium.

Hampden Park and Ibrox were 5 Star and are both UEFA Elites, really hope they use this as an oppurtunity to fix Hampden, it's oval shape means behind the goals are miles away from the goals. And after the Commonwealth Games in 2014, the athletics events in the city won't demand the capacity Hampden has so it can afford to lose it's track in return for better views and atmosphere.

Murrayfield is the biggest stadium in Scotland, 3 stands are the same design, one is smaller and if they rebuilt this one to match the rest of the stadium it would comfortably put the capacity over 70,000.

Can't see them building a new stadium for United and Dundee to share, it didn't go down well with fans of the two clubs the last time it was talked about!


----------



## jpgjohnnyg

Extended deadline lol - translation oh my god is that it do we have to pick Turkey, Georgia or the celts ffs. Looks like UEFA are descending into FIFA territory (you cant have 2 stadia in in one city sorry how much did you say ok you can have the lot of them within 60 miles of each other Mr Qatar lol) Countries have had the ability to bid for this for ages what has suddenly happened that will make any country change their mind - it all smells a bit dodgy this.


----------



## parcdesprinces

RobH said:


> Platini, head of UEFA, voted for Qatar to host a World Cup. We're not really going to have a debate about any of the bidders' footballing credentials given this context are we?


Don't know........ but, anyway, here the reason why (I mean, the reason why 'Platoche' voted for the Qatari bid..):




parcdesprinces said:


> Actually, Platini is personally not really a "big fan" of the Qatar/Qatari (far from that: You should, for example, read what he said last year in the French press about them, especially when they bought the Paris SG... it wasn't really nice).
> 
> BTW, he admitted in the Swiss press that if he voted for Qatar in the 2022 race, it's because Sarkozy and the French companies' lobby who asked him to do so, nothing more.
> (all this story was highly political, and the French interests are on the Qatar side :yes.
> 
> Oh, and honestly I don't think that Platini/Platoche is corrupted. UEFA is not FIFA.


----------



## cornelinho

jpgjohnnyg said:


> Extended deadline lol - translation oh my god is that it do we have to pick Turkey, Georgia or the celts ffs. Looks like UEFA are descending into FIFA territory (you cant have 2 stadia in in one city sorry how much did you say ok you can have the lot of them within 60 miles of each other Mr Qatar lol) Countries have had the ability to bid for this for ages what has suddenly happened that will make any country change their mind - it all smells a bit dodgy this.


3-way bids... that will make nations change their mind.s


----------



## vitaming

Wonder if Cro-Serb-BiH will resurface?


----------



## Turkiiish

*UEFA have confirmed that countries will still be able to bid for Euro 2020 - even if they did not declare an interest before Tuesday's deadline.*


----------



## R.K.Teck

They obviously don't want any of us then.
Just waiting for somebody like Spain to bid and that will be that.


----------



## Fabri88

Am I crazy if I think about a NINE countries bid?

Iceland + Faroe Islands + Norway + Sweden + Denmark + Finland + Estonia + Latvia + Lithuania

1 stadium each country.

Then a 44 countries qualifying process: 5 pools of 6 teams and 2 pools of 7 teams! The first two teams of every pool are automatically qualified. The other two spots are given to the two best third ranked teams. 

I think that only Italy, Germany, England, France, Spain, Turkey and Russia could run on their own.

For sure, this doesn't justify my craziness but it could be an experience to do.


----------



## sticky91

in a 24 team tournament there is nothing wrong with anything up to 4 countries hosting and going straight into the tournament imo.


----------



## Turkiiish

*UEFA have confirmed that countries will still be able to bid for Euro 2020 - even if they did not declare an interest before Tuesday's deadline.*


----------



## JYDA

Fabri88 said:


> Am I crazy if I think about a NINE countries bid?
> 
> Iceland + Faroe Islands + Norway + Sweden + Denmark + Finland + Estonia + Latvia + Lithuania
> 
> 1 stadium each country.
> 
> Then a 44 countries qualifying process: 5 pools of 6 teams and 2 pools of 7 teams! The first two teams of every pool are automatically qualified. The other two spots are given to the two best third ranked teams.
> 
> I think that only Italy, Germany, England, France, Spain, Turkey and Russia could run on their own.
> 
> For sure, this doesn't justify my craziness but it could be an experience to do.


That would create several white elephants. What are Iceland and the Faroe Islands going to do with a 30k capacity stadium?


----------



## PAO13

Fabri88 said:


> Am I crazy if I think about a NINE countries bid?


Yes.



oxo said:


> What about a Norway-Sweden-Denmark triple nation bid?


No chance. We can't afford it here in Noway. (sarcasm)


----------



## cornelinho

R.K.Teck said:


> They obviously don't want any of us then.
> Just waiting for somebody like Spain to bid and that will be that.


exactly


----------



## eagle in sky

If number of team rise 24,we can corporate with Greece.


----------



## cornelinho

eagle in sky said:


> If number of team rise 24,we can corporate with Greece.


why ?


----------



## jpgjohnnyg

cornelinho said:


> 3-way bids... that will make nations change their mind.s


True but a quick glance on wikipedia would tell any FA that a 3 way bid is a possibility. Likewise a quick phone call to UEFA by an interested assocaition would have cleared that up. No the truth is UEFA are just hoping a safe option like England, Germany, Spain or Italy will decide to go for it - yawn.


----------



## IFM

No matter how many countries will bid.

Turkey is the absolute favourite and deserves it after 4 times trying to get it.Euro 2016 lost because of one vote and Platini Lobby.

But competition and challenge will be good for all candidates.


----------



## Fabri88

eagle in sky said:


> If number of team rise 24,we can corporate with Greece.


I think Greece has other troubles to cope with rather than bid for Euro 2020!

PS: Greece/Turkey was already a bid for Euro 2004, was not?


----------



## Fabri88

jpgjohnnyg said:


> True but a quick glance on wikipedia would tell any FA that a 3 way bid is a possibility. Likewise a quick phone call to UEFA by an interested assocaition would have cleared that up. No *the truth is UEFA are just hoping a safe option like England, Germany, Spain or Italy will decide to go for it - yawn.*


Unless I will be happy if Italy would bet for the third time, I think that the extension of the deadline is a mistake!

This obviously means that UEFA don't like any of the bids now in place.

They have:

1) A hopeless bid: Georgian one!
2) A triple-bid, the Celtic one, for that someone could disagree: this means 3 spots already blocked, but overall, countries don't border each other.
3) The Turkish one! I think that politicians don't look favourably to an EC played in an almost non-European country!

So they are hoping for something "better".


----------



## alexandru.mircea

I think only idiots are stuck on this "non-European" pseudo-issue.


----------



## oxo

PAO13 said:


> No chance. We can't afford it here in Noway. (sarcasm)


In line with alexandru.mircea's argument above, what about a triple bid with Algeria, Morocco and Spain for a more North African feel.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

oxo said:


> In line with alexandru.mircea's argument above, what about a triple bid with Algeria, Morocco and Spain for a more North African feel.


I didn't know Algeria and Morocco were in UEFA.


----------



## endrity

alexandru.mircea said:


> I think only idiots are stuck on this "non-European" pseudo-issue.


Word. Turkey's teams compete in every European sport tournament. Whatever politicians think about Turkey's inclusion in the EU matters little for EURO2020. 

What is probably hurting Turkey's chances right now is their match fixing scandal that the Turkish FA pretty much refuses to investigate.


----------



## parcdesprinces

oxo said:


> what about a triple bid with Algeria, Morocco and Spain for a more North African feel.


Great idea! I always thought (especially since 2008-2010) that Spain should join the CAF...


----------



## RobH

endrity said:


> Word. Turkey's teams compete in every European sport tournament. Whatever politicians think about Turkey's inclusion in the EU matters little for EURO2020.
> 
> What is probably hurting Turkey's chances right now is their match fixing scandal that the Turkish FA pretty much refuses to investigate.


Agreed. What the Scots etc entering does is give UEFA leverage. They can really pressure Turkey into properly dealing with what's going on in their leagues.


----------



## Turkiiish

La Turquie est le grand favoris pour l'organisation de l'UEFA EURO 2020.


----------



## alwn

oxo said:


> In line with alexandru.mircea's argument above, what about a triple bid with Algeria, Morocco and Spain for a more North African feel.


In case Turkish bid will be the winner I see that only 2 stadiums out of 10 would be located in Europe (Olympic Ataturk and Turk Telecom).. And we are talking about the European Championship..
If UEFA will decide once to include algeria, morocco and tunisia in Europe in terms of football we could have also an European Championship in Africa :nuts:
I'm just wonderring what's the use to divide football in continental federations if you don't follow the basic geography? 
Israel is not in Europe and only a very small part of Turkey is European (only3%..). I can understand that nowdays everyone dreems to be european but what to say, since the supercontinent Pangaea beginning to rift around 200 million years ago things are very clear: Asia is Asia, Europe is Europe and africa is.. africa.


----------



## endrity

alwn said:


> In case Turkish bid will be the winner I see that only 2 stadiums out of 10 would be located in Europe (Olympic Ataturk and Turk Telecom).. And we are talking about the European Championship..
> If UEFA will decide once to include algeria, morocco and tunisia in Europe in terms of football we could have also an European Championship in Africa :nuts:
> I'm just wonderring what's the use to divide football in continental federations if you don't follow the basic geography?
> Israel is not in Europe and only a very small part of Turkey is European (only3%..). I can understand that nowdays everyone dreems to be european but what to say, since the supercontinent Pangaea beginning to rift around 200 million years ago things are very clear: Asia is Asia, Europe is Europe and africa si africa.


Is Turkey a European Football Federation or not? Yes it is. Why does it matter that some of their stadiums are not in what is properly Europe geographically. For that matter, cities like Donbass, Moscow etc are even further east, yet no one complains. 

can people drop this silly argument?


----------



## www.sercan.de

BTW the UEFA was founded in 1954. The TFF joined the UEFA in 1962, but clubs and national team played already at European cups or WC Euro qualification.

Galatasaray played as Istanbul Champion 1955-1956 at the European Cup 1956-1957 etc.


----------



## alwn

www.sercan.de said:


> BTW the UEFA was founded in 1954. The TFF joined the UEFA in 1962, but clubs and national team played already at European cups or WC Euro qualification.
> 
> Galatasaray played as Istanbul Champion 1955-1956 at the European Cup 1956-1957 etc.


they lost to Dinamo Bucharest in the firts round 

actually Galata was born in the old Galata high school and raised in the European part of Istanbul


----------



## PrevaricationComplex

Back when the European Unions membership was made up of only of the larger Countries and the more civilised of the smaller ones, Turkey was *asked* to join. Unlike some they did the sensible and responsible thing by saying no because their economy couldn't handle the convulsive changes. Turkey has always been an integral part of Europe as far back as the Eastern Roman empire and through times since, regardless of who has lived there. Turkey's membership of various European cultural associations designed to strengthen common bonds of European identity has always *reflected* this rather than be *in spite* of this. Sadly this mindset among the European populace and to a large degree it's elite has changed over the last 30 or so years, possibly irrevocably.

If one was asked to draw up lines on a map to define Europe on a logical basis, civilisation wouldn't stretch further than the Carpathians, because well it doesn't. It would however include territory that was given to Greece after all the post ww1 treaties were signed.


----------



## whiteguard

Turkey would be absolutely lovely!
First EURO for decades without any visa restrictions and plenty of cheap flights available.


----------



## endrity

PrevaricationComplex said:


> Back when the European Unions membership was made up of only of the larger Countries and the more civilised of the smaller ones, Turkey was *asked* to join. Unlike some they did the sensible and responsible thing by saying no because their economy couldn't handle the convulsive changes. Turkey has always been an integral part of Europe as far back as the Eastern Roman empire and through times since, regardless of who has lived there. Turkey's membership of various European cultural associations designed to strengthen common bonds of European identity has always *reflected* this rather than be *in spite* of this. Sadly this mindset among the European populace and to a large degree it's elite has changed over the last 30 or so years, *possibly irrevocably.*
> 
> If one was asked to draw up lines on a map to define Europe on a logical basis, civilisation wouldn't stretch further than the Carpathians, because well it doesn't. It would however include territory that was given to Greece after all the post ww1 treaties were signed.


nothing lasts forever mate, if Turkey keeps going at the current rate of economic growth they will probably be asked to join rather than them themselves doing so


----------



## endrity

oxo said:


> So Poles are Eastern Europeans and you're questioning Poland's status as a central European country?
> :nuts:


huh???


----------



## MS20

endrity said:


> nothing lasts forever mate, if Turkey keeps going at the current rate of economic growth they will probably be asked to join rather than them themselves doing so


Doubt it. The reason why Europe is not keen on Turkey joining EU isn't so much to do with the economic state of the nation, but more to do with the fact that it is Islamic. It is secular of course, but that's not going to matter too much to hot headed Europeans. 

Of course Turkey is already seen as part of Europe, but formally it may not be for some time (if ever) because of this. Even if its economic growth continues to outstrip many European states, there will still be many against EU integration.


----------



## vitaming

The issue isn't Islam per se, it's increasing fundamentalism, primarily from people with roots in poor rural central Anatolia. Many of which live in W Europe and give Europeans their daily impressions of Turks. Coastal Turks and Europeans are as close as they've ever been culturally.


----------



## jpgjohnnyg

Istanbul makes it to the last 3 for the olympic 2020 bid resulting in the continuing uncertainty for UEFA 2020. Its some balancing act Turkey are playing - will it all horribly backfire resulting in no major event in 2020.


----------



## oxo

endrity said:


> huh???


Very simple. Poland is in central Europe, not eastern Europe.


----------



## tbilisky

let it be the central Europe with the piece of territory in the east europe.


----------



## IFM

MS20 said:


> Even if its economic growth continues to outstrip many European states, there will still be many against EU integration.


Turkey will definately outstrip many european economies in one decade.In terms of economy it is ASIAN.Asian tiger.


----------



## cornelinho

congratulations azerbies, you have been eliminated from olympics and also no bid for euo2020, good job


----------



## Ulpia-Serdica

MS20 said:


> Of course Turkey is already seen as part of Europe, but formally it may not be for some time (if ever) because of this. Even if its economic growth continues to outstrip many European states, there will still be many against EU integration.


It also really dependents how things in the EU will move. Current the EU is an economic & political union that is joined only through a common monetary policy and bare in mind that it is not all the members that have this common monetary policy. 

If the integration process speeds up and ends up in common fiscal & political policies, then the situation might end up being much more different in the long-term. Turkey will undeniably surpass in terms of nominal GDP quite a few European countries in the future, whether its economy will have the same economic reach as them is debatable, but one thing is sure if the EU ends up much more federalized by the time Turkey is ready to join, this will definitively change the negotiation patterns between the two. By that time, Brussels might have much more of a negotiation power than nation states current do, but at the same time Turkey's economy will have grown quite a lot and maybe the Turkish government will be reluctant to give out its monetary, fiscal and political power to Brussels.


----------



## hater

cornelinho said:


> congratulations azerbies, you have been eliminated from olympics and also no bid for euo2020, good job


we are bidding for euro2020 with Georgia 


:bash::bash::bash::bash::bash::bash::bash:


----------



## vitaming

Easy with the hammers. You used the same reply when I told you the OG were a waste of time and that you should focus on a Euro bid. You said Azerbaijan wasn't even capable of hosting the Euros and I suggested a joint bid with Georgia was easily achievable.


----------



## jpgjohnnyg

you have to laugh at this thread the is Turkey in Europe or Asia nonsense keeps on going and yet no-one other than myself bothers to actually comment on Istanbuls progress with the olympic bid potentially jeapordising the UEFA bid. At least Platini has noticed and I guess thats all that matters

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/sport/home-nations-euro-2020-bid-boosted-3118088.html


----------



## Turkiiish

L'Azerbaïdjan rejoint la Gèorgie, après l'élimination de BAKU 2020 au Jeux olympique 2020 !

*OFFICIAL CANDIDAT* : 

- Turquie
- *Azerbaidjan* / Gèorgie
- Irlande / Pays de Galles / Ecosse


----------



## Fizmo1337

MS20 said:


> Doubt it. The reason why Europe is not keen on Turkey joining EU isn't so much to do with the economic state of the nation, but more to do with the fact that it is Islamic. It is secular of course, but that's not going to matter too much to hot headed Europeans.
> 
> Of course Turkey is already seen as part of Europe, but formally it may not be for some time (if ever) because of this. Even if its economic growth continues to outstrip many European states, there will still be many against EU integration.


It has actually much more to do with its huge population (balkan nations are partly muslim aswell but no one cares). It would make them as influential as Germany based on seats in the European Parliament. France, UK, Italy and others don't want to see their influence diminish so much and that to a country that hasn't been at the centre of the european project since 1954. I don't think they trust Turkey that much to put so much power in their hands. It' still a mediterannean country and just like Italy (berlusconi anyone?), Greece & Spain it's more corrupt & undemocratic then the northern/western european countries and it doesn't have the same point of view/attitude as countries like Germany/UK/France. 

If Turkey had only 10million people, I'm 100% sure it would have already been an EU member for 10 years.


----------



## Kimiwind1184

^ I agree.


----------



## cSaints

Turkiiish said:


> L'Azerbaïdjan rejoint la Gèorgie, après l'élimination de BAKU 2020 au Jeux olympique 2020 !
> 
> *OFFICIAL CANDIDAT* :
> 
> - Turquie
> - *Azerbaidjan* / Gèorgie
> - Irlande / Pays de Galles / Ecosse


AHAHAHA omg Wales is called Pays de Galles in French?? That is hilarious. Translates to 'Country of Galls'. Gall: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gall

As far as whether Turkey should be part of UEFA.. well aren't Azerbaijan and Georgia even further east and they're bidding. And then there is Kazakhstan. I mean really? Look at a map, Kazakhstan stretches half way into Asia, the clue is in the name. (Okay Russia extends all the way to the other side of Asia but that's different because the bulk of the population is in the West). 

Anyway, enough of politics. On the actual bids, I do like the look of the Scottish/Welsh/Irish bid and they are already not far off being capable of hosting it as they are right now. As for the other two bids, I don't really know much about them and what they offer so I can't comment. As a Liverpool fan it would be nice to have a reason to visit the Ataruk Stadium in Istanbul, but apart from that I haven't heard anything about the bid to interest me. The fact they've bidded the last 2 times and been rejected doesn't mean they deserve it any more this time round


----------



## alexandru.mircea

^ It's Gauls not Galls.


----------



## Mr.Underground

So, hoping for the joint bid Azerbaijan/Georgia and for ISTANBUL 2020.


----------



## www.sercan.de

BTW, what happend to the nordic bid?

They can still bid.
Denmark - Sweden - Norway


----------



## vitaming

Mr.Underground said:


> So, hoping for the joint bid Azerbaijan/Georgia and for ISTANBUL 2020.


As am I. Though the Celts are very shrewd negotiators across sport, so the Caucasus bid will have to come up with something truly impressive. Which they have the funds to do.


----------



## hater

vitaming said:


> Easy with the hammers. You used the same reply when I told you the OG were a waste of time and that you should focus on a Euro bid. You said Azerbaijan wasn't even capable of hosting the Euros and I suggested a joint bid with Georgia was easily achievable.


:doh:
I didnt say Azerbaijan wasnt capable of hosting Euro 2020 i said it would be a waste of money just to bid when we all already know who will get it


----------



## hater

Mr.Underground said:


> So, hoping for the joint bid Azerbaijan/Georgia and for ISTANBUL 2020.


yep Azerbaijan is bidding with Georgia for Euro 2020 
hope Istanbul gets olympics so we have a chance in getting Euro


----------



## oxo

tbilisky said:


> let it be the central Europe with the piece of territory in the east europe.


No, the whole of Poland is in central Europe and the very geographic centre of Europe is officially recognized as a village about 20 or 30 miles from Warsaw.


----------



## Bogus Law

Officialy recognised? By whom? 
As you can read here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographical_midpoint_of_Europe
threre simply can't be any official centre. 
East or Centre of Europe - it all depends on the point of view, so it's pointless to argue about it.


----------



## vitaming

It's a cultural designation not a geographic one. The same reason Helsinki is considered a western city and Tallinn eastern, or Vienna vs Prague. Mitteleuropa kind of lost its relevance with the Hapsburgs.


----------



## eomer

oxo said:


> No, the whole of Poland is in central Europe and the very geographic centre of Europe is officially recognized as a village about 20 or 30 miles from Warsaw.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gelnhausen
It's in Germany, Hessen.


----------



## Xtreminal

Scottish/Wales/Irish bid doesn't look serious. Also I think 3 countries is too much for being host. 2 should be maximum.

Azerbaijan/Georgia have chance even though Turkey will win it, I'm quiet certain. It deserves it


----------



## PrevaricationComplex

Xtreminal said:


> Scottish/Wales/Irish bid doesn't look serious. Also I think 3 countries is too much for being host. *2 should be maximum.*
> 
> Azerbaijan/Georgia have chance even though Turkey will win it, I'm quiet certain. It deserves it


Don't understand why you're so arbitrary, They'll make excellent host.


----------



## bicho84

Fizmo1337 said:


> It has actually much more to do with its huge population (balkan nations are partly muslim aswell but no one cares). It would make them as influential as Germany based on seats in the European Parliament. France, UK, Italy and others don't want to see their influence diminish so much and that to a country that hasn't been at the centre of the european project since 1954. I don't think they trust Turkey that much to put so much power in their hands. It' still a mediterannean country and just like Italy (berlusconi anyone?), Greece & Spain it's more corrupt & undemocratic then the northern/western european countries and it doesn't have the same point of view/attitude as countries like Germany/UK/France.
> 
> If Turkey had only 10million people, I'm 100% sure it would have already been an EU member for 10 years.


That's all truth about turkey an eu relationship.


----------



## cornelinho

i am still surprised about Azerbaijan bidig for the euros, UEFA must be mad now that Madrid made the shortlist and is not planing any bid :lol: is Germany reconsidering there intentions ?


----------



## hater

*Azerbaijan, Georgia notifies UEFA of intention to host Euro-2020*










Azerbaijan and Georgia have already appealed to UEFA stating the intention to set a joint bid for hosting Eurovision championship-2020.
According to AFFA’s website, in line with the rules, the association or associations willing to hold Euro-2020 must report to UEFA about this. The UEFA working group will present the regulation of tender to be sent to the countries stating their intentions to the UEFA executive committee in Kiev on 30 June.

The countries will have 18 months to submit all documents in UEFA. UEFA will declare the Euro-2020 organizer country on the basis of these documents in late 2013 or early 2014. 

news.az


----------



## cornelinho

hater said:


> Azerbaijan, Georgia notifies UEFA of intention to host Euro-2020
> Azerbaijan and Georgia have already appealed to UEFA stating the intention to set a joint bid for hosting *Eurovision championship-2020.*
> news.az


 :lol:


----------



## Hansadyret

Somebody have watched to much Eurovision lately


----------



## Thanial

Xtreminal said:


> Scottish/Wales/Irish bid doesn't look serious. Also I think 3 countries is too much for being host. 2 should be maximum.
> 
> Azerbaijan/Georgia have chance even though Turkey will win it, I'm quiet certain. It deserves it


I would like to see a three-way hosting, though I'm not sure how it would work considering they would be taking up three slots in the draw, plus I don't know whether UEFA would agree with it. 

I can't see Turkey winning the Euro bid, especially since they are considered by many to be the favourites to win the Olympic hosting rights for the same year, which would mean they won't be allowed to host Euro. And they've already said that they'd favor hosting the Olympics.


----------



## tbilisky

Azerbaijan and Georgian bid it the great option for UEFA for the europe 2020.. there will be a new railway line from London to Tbilisi and Baku, also there will be built the kutaisi airport, which will be largest in Caucasus and cheaper. a lot of different scale hotels where built recently and many more are in a building process and even more planned to be built, as i know there is the same tendation in azerbaijan.. Stadiums will not be an issue, there will be two appropriate Stadiums in both Baku and Tbilisi. New stadium will be built in Batumi and Kutaisi. So Georgia and Azeri bid would be a great choice.


----------



## Turkiiish

C'est quand que les candidats vont lancer leur site internet de candidature avec le logo, le slogan & les projet ? ?


----------



## Rekarte

too easy for Turkey now


----------



## www.sercan.de

Turkiiish said:


> C'est quand que les candidats vont lancer leur site internet de candidature avec le logo, le slogan & les projet ? ?


English please.


Looks like Turkey will try to get the Olympics and they will try to bid for the EURO 2024


----------



## TEBC

i hope that Turkey withdraw Euro bids and go straight to WC!!


----------



## www.sercan.de

WC would be great, but its England who will get the next WC (2026).

So maybe Turkey 2034 or 2038


----------



## cSaints

As you've starting talking about 2026 WC, am I the only person who has thought about a English bid that also uses one stadium from each of Wales, Scotland, and Ireland

I.e. Millennium Stadium, Murray Field, and Croke Park

And then use Wembley, Twickenham, Emirates, New White Hart Lane, Battersea Stadium, Old Trafford, Slightly extended City of Manchester Stadium, New Anfield, and Slightly extended St James' Park.

12 stadiums as follows:
1 90000 stadium, 5 ~75000+ stadiums, 6 ~60000+Stadiums. Epic. Especially as Fifa only requires most the stadiums to be around 30000 then a few larger ones.


----------



## RobH

Zero appetite for England to go to FIFA in its current state - why waste £20m charming a corrupt organisation again when we could be spending that on St George's Park or improving kids' pitches? FIFA will have to find somewhere else to go.


----------



## PaulFCB

So it's between Ireland-Scotland-Wales and Azer-Georgia for Euro 2020? 
Why the damn did they have to make the Euro a 24 team competition? The format used for Austria-Switzerland was perfect. 

1 50.000
1. 40.000 to host group games and later all the QF, SF and F.

Another 3x 30.000/country. Affordable. In case a country would host on it's own, even 6 stadiums in 6 cities were enough.


----------



## www.sercan.de

or maybe anaother country. You can still bid for EURO 2020


----------



## Aka

www.sercan.de said:


> but its England who will get the next WC (2026).


:|


----------



## PaulFCB

www.sercan.de said:


> You can still bid for EURO 2020


 Link pls so I can send my application :lol: :tongue3:.


Well. Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria are way too dumb and lazy to push just a bit so they can host a Euro with 3 stadiums/country.
Romania already has a 55k and 30k, with another 40k in Timisoara it has done it's job. Bucharest can extend to 62-64k with no big problems, it's planned since the initial project that it can accept this extension.
Hungary have 0, Bulgaria have 0. Let's just say Bulgaria renovate Vasil Levski and occupy a 40k slot, we have 2/3 40k. Build 2 more 30k in Varna and Plovdiv and you got it!
Hungary needs a new Nepstadion, 50k, build another 2x 30K and Cluj can extend the Cluj-Arena to 40k and it's done. By 2020 we would be miles ahead of what Poland-Ukraine are in 2012. Damn it, in Donetsk they don't even have places to stay for the fans as much as I saw.


----------



## cSaints

England played a game against Bulgaria last year and our players got racially abused by large portions of the Bulgarian fans.. With all the drama going on about racist fans in Ukraine right now, I don't really see UEFA going down that risky route again if there's any issues at all this summer


----------



## tbilisky

one more argument, why Euro bid for 2020 must be given to Georgia.. The majority of Georgians are not rascists.. If we do not take into consideration rascizm aganist armenians


----------



## bicho84

tbilisky said:


> one more argument, why Euro bid for 2020 must be given to Georgia.. The majority of Georgians are not rascists.. If we do not take into consideration rascizm aganist armenians


ar unda dagecera es somxebze xazgasmit. ar ivargebs...


----------



## lukaszek89

tbilisky said:


> one more argument, why Euro bid for 2020 must be given to Georgia.. The majority of Georgians are not rascists.. If we do not take into consideration rascizm aganist armenians


so according to you majority in UA and PL is racist?


----------



## MS20

The Euro's can always fall back into the countries that could host it tomorrow... Germany, England (or even a dual bid with Scotland), and Spain. Those 3 countries would have no problem hosting a 24 team Euro on short notice. If no one is willing to step up, I'm sure one of those would accept responsibility. There is practically no need for billions to be spent infrastructural upgrades. Would they need to spend a dime? 

Either way I'd still like to see Italy bid for 2020. After their failures in bidding recently, they'd be in a strong place to win, especially with so few options on the table.

Football is the only sport that continually goes out of its way to find hosts that pose countless problems. I understand the importance of spreading the hosting duties and allowing smaller countries to upgrade their facilities and participate on the big stage, but sometimes they overdo it. You could alternate between England and Germany and every Euro would be a resounding success financially, with full stadiums at every match and vibrant atmospheres in the countries during the tournament. 

Without wishing to offend anyone, there is really no reason why a three/two-host bid should ever be preferred to one of the traditional large nations. The Euro's could be a tournament rotated between: Germany, England, Spain, Italy, France, Russia, Turkey, and perhaps Poland in the future. The rest have no business hosting it.


----------



## parcdesprinces

MS20 said:


> The Euro's can always fall back into the countries that could host it tomorrow... Germany, England (or even a dual bid with Scotland), and Spain. Those 3 countries would have no problem hosting a 24 team Euro on short notice. If no one is willing to step up, I'm sure one of those would accept responsibility. There is practically no need for billions to be spent infrastructural upgrades. *Would they need to spend a dime?*


Well, I agree about England and Germany, but I disagree regarding Spain, since according to the latest UEFA Euro requirements (for 2016), among others all the seats must be covered... And today I can only think of three or four 30K+ stadiums in Spain which are fully covered (above the stands) and which are not too old: Barcelona (Espanyol), Sevilla (Estadio Olimpico), Donostia, Murcia.. Not to mention the number of suites and business seats required by UEFA in each host stadium (e.g. 40 suites/skyboxes minimum for the 30K+ stadiums, 50 minimum for the 40K+ stadiums and 80 minimum for the 50K+ stadiums): Except Bernabeu and a few others, most of the Spanish stadiums would need a major upgrade on that matter..

And add to that the seat width and tread depth very strict requierements, etc. That's BTW why a large part of the tiers at several Euro 2016 host stadiums will be rebuilt, and massively extended while in the end they will not gain many seats compared to today (eg. in Toulouse, Marseille, St-Etienne, Paris (PdP) & Lens)

Extracted from the very offcial "UEFA Euro 2016 requirements":


----------



## MS20

Fair enough, thanks. Didn't think about that kind of stuff. Still, UEFA should make use of these capable hosts more often than it does. The egalitarian approach is fine, but instead of talking about racism, white elephants, broken infrastructure promises, violence, corrupt police, empty seats, numbers of people travelling and so on, we could see a lot more "no fuss" tournaments if they stuck with an approach that utilized the large, developed markets that can put on a real party that celebrates the game.


----------



## jpgjohnnyg

MS20 bit boring just rotating the tournament amongst the select few - one other big point it is expensive to hold these events, as we can see from the bidding for Euro 2020 some ''big'' countries are obviously just not interested!


----------



## DaveyCakes

MS20 said:


> Football is the only sport that continually goes out of its way to find hosts that pose countless problems. I understand the importance of spreading the hosting duties and allowing smaller countries to upgrade their facilities and participate on the big stage, but sometimes they overdo it. You could alternate between England and Germany and every Euro would be a resounding success financially, with full stadiums at every match and vibrant atmospheres in the countries during the tournament.
> 
> Without wishing to offend anyone, there is really no reason why a three/two-host bid should ever be preferred to one of the traditional large nations. The Euro's could be a tournament rotated between: Germany, England, Spain, Italy, France, Russia, Turkey, and perhaps Poland in the future. The rest have no business hosting it.


Like the full stadiums at every match in Euro 96 in England???? Rotating it between the same few countries would just mean that boredom would set in. And as for countries that have "no business" hosting it....how about one with a vast majority of outdated stadia, a tanking economy, numerous corruption and match-fixing scandals...yes, Italy


----------



## tbilisky

MS20 you r flying into the clouds.. that will be the discrimination against other states and u r insulting other states, so u need just to stop trolling.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

Football tournaments are also about the tourist experience, so keeping them in the same countries over and over will not be considered. Also, England and Spain won't bid for the EUROs IMO because they'll still want to keep their chances for hosting World Cups.


----------



## Palatinus

I think will be Germany 2020. It will be the 2nd EURO with 24 teams. So we will need an organized nation.

France will host the Euro in 2016. Poland & Ukraine, Portugal, Netherlands & Belgium, Austria & Switzerland, Sweden and England hosted the Euro in the '90s. 

Russia will host the World Cup in 2018 so I exclude it from the Euro bid.

The nations available are: 

Germany, Italy, Spain, Turkey, Georgia & Azerbaijan (  )

Italy withdrew from the Olympic bid for Rome 2020 for economical reasons. 

At the same time Spain has got a very difficult situation, meanwhile Madrid is an applicant city for the Olympic Bid. 

I think the final round will be Germany vs Turkey, if Istambul won't host the Olympic Games in 2020.


----------



## Fallout

1996 was long time ago. I don't see why England couldn't host another Euro after 24 years.


----------



## Laurence2011

Palatinus said:


> I think will be Germany 2020. It will be the 2nd EURO with 24 teams. So we will need an organized nation.
> 
> France will host the Euro in 2016. Poland & Ukraine, Portugal, Netherlands & Belgium, Austria & Switzerland, Sweden and England hosted the Euro in the '90s.
> 
> Russia will host the World Cup in 2018 so I exclude it from the Euro bid.
> 
> The nations available are:
> 
> Germany, Italy, Spain, Turkey, Georgia & Azerbaijan (  )
> 
> Italy withdrew from the Olympic bid for Rome 2020 for economical reasons.
> 
> At the same time Spain has got a very difficult situation, meanwhile Madrid is an applicant city for the Olympic Bid.
> 
> I think the final round will be Germany vs Turkey, if Istambul won't host the Olympic Games in 2020.


But Germany already stated they're not interested in bidding


----------



## jpgjohnnyg

Palatinus said:


> I think will be Germany 2020. It will be the 2nd EURO with 24 teams. So we will need an organized nation.
> 
> France will host the Euro in 2016. Poland & Ukraine, Portugal, Netherlands & Belgium, Austria & Switzerland, Sweden and England hosted the Euro in the '90s.
> 
> Russia will host the World Cup in 2018 so I exclude it from the Euro bid.
> 
> The nations available are:
> 
> Germany, Italy, Spain, Turkey, Georgia & Azerbaijan (  )
> 
> Italy withdrew from the Olympic bid for Rome 2020 for economical reasons.
> 
> At the same time Spain has got a very difficult situation, meanwhile Madrid is an applicant city for the Olympic Bid.
> 
> I think the final round will be Germany vs Turkey, if Istambul won't host the Olympic Games in 2020.


 
I love the way the Celtic bid is completely ignored despite having some of the best grounds in Europe ready to go


----------



## bicho84

Georgia will be able to host the tournament if there will be a strong support of government and private investors. It's a small country and the costs woudn't be as much as in big countries.


----------



## uğur1

eorgia will be able to host the tournament if there will be a strong support of government and private investor)This must be a joke,you're talking nonsense,do you have any idea what a place georgia is?Even ukraine couldn't do anything except stadiums,what will georgia be able to do?


----------



## hater

he is from Georgia I think ^^


----------



## Harisson

uğur;91971424 said:


> eorgia will be able to host the tournament if there will be a strong support of government and private investor)This must be a joke,you're talking nonsense,do you have any idea what a place georgia is?*Even ukraine couldn't do anything except stadiums*,what will georgia be able to do?


:nuts:

Ukraine has spent on the preparation over 10 billion euros: new terminals at airports, hotels, roads, high-speed trains...

BTW Ukraine had no help from the EU as Poland:


ja.centy said:


> _Expenses on the infrastructure projects carried out in relation to Euro 2012 (data in billion euros)._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Descriptions from the top:
> - roads
> - railway stations
> - public transport
> - sport infrastructure
> - hotels
> - airports
> - accomodation centres
> - other*


----------



## hater

what does "dworce kollejowe " mean?


----------



## Hendycfc

I wish a Scotland- Ireland bid went through.


----------



## Harisson

hater said:


> what does "dworce kollejowe " mean?


See below


----------



## hater

Harisson said:


> See below


lol my bad missed that 

:hammer:


----------



## bicho84

uğur;91971424 said:


> eorgia will be able to host the tournament if there will be a strong support of government and private investor)This must be a joke,you're talking nonsense,do you have any idea what a place georgia is?Even ukraine couldn't do anything except stadiums,what will georgia be able to do?


I mean Georgia with Azerbaijan together will be able to host. Beside of it what's a place Georgia is, what's wrong in it?


----------



## Fooby

bicho84 said:


> I mean Georgia with Azerbaijan together will be able to host. Beside of it what's a place Georgia is, what's wrong in it?


Besides it having a population of only 4.5 million and a per capita income of only $3,000 a year, you mean. (Nowhere near enough to co-host a Euro)

Well, the fact that it has no control over 20% of it's territory and experienced a major war with (and invasion by) Russia as recently as 2008.

Azerbaijan could probably just about manage co-hosting a Euro, given it's oil money and relative stability, but it would be similar to Qatar hosting the World Cup, a small country with little footballing tradition.

Anyone who thinks that UEFA would award EURO 2020 to Georgia and Azerbaijan is living in a dream world.


----------



## Turkiiish

Les villes qui seront retenu en Azerbaïdjan & Gèorgie pour la candidature seront annoncé en Juin.


----------



## bicho84

Fooby said:


> Besides it having a population of only 4.5 million and a per capita income of only $3,000 a year, you mean. (Nowhere near enough to co-host a Euro)
> 
> Well, the fact that it has no control over 20% of it's territory and experienced a major war with (and invasion by) Russia as recently as 2008.
> 
> Azerbaijan could probably just about manage co-hosting a Euro, given it's oil money and relative stability, but it would be similar to Qatar hosting the World Cup, a small country with little footballing tradition.
> 
> Anyone who thinks that UEFA would award EURO 2020 to Georgia and Azerbaijan is living in a dream world.


I'm not saying that we have great chanses to win this competition, we just would be able to host this comptetion. For now turkey is favorite.


----------



## Tallsmurf

Hendycfc said:


> I wish a Scotland- Ireland bid went through.


It is a 3-nation bid not 2 - includes Wales with best stadium


----------



## bieber

Are these guys on the picture in charge of the azeri proposal?


----------



## jpgjohnnyg

cSaints as you can tell from my previous posts I fully support the Celtic bid but I am afraid I cant see the Cardiff City stadium being used for the tournament - only for training and maybe as a reserve ground. The reason being UEFA have issues regarding how many grounds are in 1 city. Currently only one city can have 2 grounds, for a 3-nation bid 2 cities MAY be allowed but 3 forget it. The 2 cities with multiple grounds would be Dublin (Aviva and Croke) and Glasgow (Hampden and Ibrox or Celtic Park). The Millenium stadium would obviously be the premier ground in Cardiff with a good shout for hosting a semi or even Final thus ruling out Cardiff Citys ground


----------



## TEBC

Shouldnt the time zone from Azerbaijan be a disadvantage for the bid?


----------



## GEwinnen

The german FA plans a bid for 2020, if Istanbul gets the 2020 Olympics.
UEFA will make a complete new bid process in this case. 
It seems that Turkey has it (the Euro 2020) in the bag, if Istanbul won't get the Olympics!


----------



## TEBC

GEwinnen said:


> The german FA plans a bid for 2020, if Istanbul gets the 2020 Olympics.
> UEFA will make a complete new bid process in this case.
> It seems that Turkey has it (the Euro 2020) in the bag, if Istanbul won't get the Olympics!


Why uefa stop with all this crap and do what we know that she wants?? They want Turkey but if Turkey cant they want a big market like germany or Italy! Just do it! Pick Turkish bid and put Germany as plan B. In that way all the countries that want to bid wont spend any money with useless bids. Neither Gaelic bid or Azerb georgia has a chance simply because UEFA doesnt want it


----------



## parcdesprinces

TEBC said:


> *she* wants??


So cute ! 

(take it easy... I'm French i.e. latin language )


----------



## GEwinnen

TEBC said:


> Why uefa stop with all this crap and do what we know that she wants?? They want Turkey but if Turkey cant they want a big market like germany or Italy! Just do it! Pick Turkish bid and put Germany as plan B. In that way all the countries that want to bid wont spend any money with useless bids. Neither Gaelic bid or Azerb georgia has a chance simply because UEFA doesnt want it


Calm down! German DFB (football association) *plans a bid*, this doesn't mean we've got the Euro 2020 in the bag! But a german bid will be a strong bid, I guess UEFA won't like "triple bids" like the Gaelic or the Nordic one. 
Turkey can't hold the 1st and the 3rd major sport event on the globe within a few weeks. UEFA waits until the decision of the IOC Congress!
If Istanbul gets the Olympics, Turkey will pull back the bid for the Euro 2020 and try again for 2024.


----------



## RobH

If UEFA doesn't like triple bids they shouldn't be allowing them to bid really. It's not fair on those countries to be strung along.


----------



## GEwinnen

RobH said:


> If UEFA doesn't like triple bids they shouldn't be allowing them to bid really. It's not fair on those countries to be strung along.


If Turkey pulls back and Germany, Italy or Spain don't bid Uefa has noch choice - they have to accept triple bids


----------



## tbilisky

Georgia-azer is a great bid, so uefa has a great choice if turkey pulls down, you my friends as it is seen from ur posts, don't know much about these two countries, they can host any international competition together as well as any European country..


----------



## GEwinnen

tbilisky said:


> Georgia-azer is a great bid, so uefa has a great choice if turkey pulls down, you my friends as it is seen from ur posts, don't know much about these two countries, they can host any international competition together as well as any European country..


Sorry - but these countries are on the edge of nowhere! Travel conditions are unacceptabel for football fans from south, central and west Europe!
And Azer&Georgia are footballing minnows - rank 112 and 95 in Fifa's world ranking!! 
Poland (rank 65) is the lowest ranked team ever in a EURO !!


----------



## Turkiiish

AZERBAYCAN 2012


----------



## Turkiiish

*AZERBAYCAN 2012*


----------



## TEBC

tbilisky said:


> Georgia-azer is a great bid, so uefa has a great choice if turkey pulls down, you my friends as it is seen from ur posts, don't know much about these two countries, they can host any international competition together as well as any European country..


The problem is that the event is getting bigger with 24 teams, its needed more than just 4 cities each.


----------



## GEwinnen

@turkiiiish:

Wtf has a ESC to do with a UEFA EURO ????


----------



## tbilisky

GEwinnen said:


> Sorry - but these countries are on the edge of nowhere! Travel conditions are unacceptabel for football fans from south, central and west Europe!
> And Azer&Georgia are footballing minnows - rank 112 and 95 in Fifa's world ranking!!
> Poland (rank 65) is the lowest ranked team ever in a EURO !!


first of all travel conditions are improving day-to-day and they are not as bad as u seem at the moment as well.. New airports, hotels and touristic infrastructure is being built. with the rate, many central European country can envy..moreover football fans from the whole Europe will be able to get in Georgia and in Azerbaijan by even train at that time.. Now about football level of Azeri and Georgian teams, yes maybe their level is a little bit poor in quality comparable to other teams, but there is much to go until 2020, and both of these teams can progress and this bid can play a central role in the development of football in these countries.. If we dont give a chance to such teams, than it comes out that only five big countries and several countries' joint bids are accepted and this is a discrimination.


----------



## RobH

It's not discrimination, it's giving things out on merit. We heard much the same arguments from those pushing for Baku 2020. The IOC decided it was way too early and the city wouldn't be ready, so cut them from the shortlist. UEFA will have to make similarly cold judgments to determine the readiness or otherwise of such nations.


----------



## tbilisky

is not it a discrimination when you wrote that only several central European countries should be a host? yes, i know that there is not an ideal situation neither in azerbaijan nor Georgia, but it is incorrect from anybody to claim that these countries do not even have a chance, that they are nowhere an so on.. please visit Baku and Batumi as well as Tbilisi and u will change ur position about these countries and their ability to host any tournament..


----------



## GEwinnen

This is a pointless discussion - if Istanbul won't get the games, the Euro 2020 will go to Turkey, so we should wait till the IOC Congress in 2013.

If Istanbul will be successful, UEFA will launch a complete new bid process for the Euro 2020, which will be open for all UEFA Members.

At the end the UEFA Executive Commission will decide and not the members of the SSC Forums:lol:


----------



## Mr.Underground

RobH said:


> It's not discrimination, it's giving things out on merit. We heard much the same arguments from those pushing for Baku 2020. The IOC decided it was way too early and the city wouldn't be ready, so cut them from the shortlist. UEFA will have to make similarly cold judgments to determine the readiness or otherwise of such nations.


Uhm, for IOC Doha wasn't ready to host Olympics, but for FIFA...


----------



## Mr.Underground

GEwinnen said:


> This is a pointless discussion - if Istanbul won't get the games, the Euro 2020 will go to Turkey, so we should wait till the IOC Congress in 2013.
> 
> If Istanbul will be successful, UEFA will launch a complete new bid process for the Euro 2020, which will be open for all UEFA Members.
> 
> *At the end the UEFA Executive Commission will decide and not the members of the SSC Forums*:lol:


I don't know. :lol:

What about a new stadium in Ankara?


----------



## alexandru.mircea

If those stadiums weren't downsized, you could have made a bid for the World Cup.


----------



## www.sercan.de

Some can be expanded


----------



## whiteguard

tbilisky said:


> is not it a discrimination when you wrote that only several central European countries should be a host? yes, i know that there is not an ideal situation neither in azerbaijan nor Georgia, but it is incorrect from anybody to claim that these countries do not even have a chance, that they are nowhere an so on.. please visit Baku and Batumi as well as Tbilisi and u will change ur position about these countries and their ability to host any tournament..


I was in Georgia a year ago. 
Probabability of a ЕURO in 2020 is 0%


----------



## vitaming

Your visit to Georgia last year has zero relevance to eight years from now, synok. Massive infrastructure upgrades would be part of any bid.


----------



## tbilisky

whiteguard, maybe u have been in the occupied territories of Georgia?  have u been in batumi, anaklia, tbilisi?


----------



## whiteguard

Barumi and Tbilisi. Don't be offended guys - I love Georgia, but the country is just not ready and does not have the tens of billions dollars to fix everything in just 8 years.
Maybe by 2030-2040 it will be better positioned to bid, jointly with Azerbaijan and Armenia


----------



## Turkiiish

*The next UEFA Executive Committee meeting, chaired by UEFA President Michel Platini, will be held at the Intercontinental Hotel in Kyiv, Ukraine on Saturday 30 June*.

*The Ukrainian capital of Kyiv will host the next meeting of the UEFA Executive Committee, with the bidding procedures and timeline for UEFA EURO 2020 on the agenda.*

The Executive Committee meeting will start at 09.00 local time and is scheduled to end at 16.00. It will be followed immediately by a press conference.

The main points on the agenda are:

• *UEFA European Football Championship 2020 – bidding procedures and timeline*

http://www.uefa.com/uefa/aboutuefa/organisation/executivecommittee/news/newsid=1829679.html


----------



## MrChavcore

i've just seen on sky sports news that uefa are considering holding uefa 2020 in at least a dozen cities across europe! i actually like the sound of this!


----------



## Kevin_01

Strange idea that spreads 

http://www.lequipe.fr/Football/Actualites/Des-matches-dans-toute-l-europe/295189


----------



## Turkiiish

Europe to host Euro 2020?

UEFA president Michel Platini on Saturday suggested that the 2020 edition of the European Championships may be held across Europe, instead of in one or two host countries in what will be its 60th anniversary.

"It's an idea," Platini told a news conference in the Ukrainian capital, Kiev. "There's nothing definitive. In December or January, we will decide whether we will take a bid for one country or two or all of Europe."

The former France international indicated that the 60th anniversary of the tournament in eight years' time could involve "12 or 13 cities across Europe", making organisation easier and alleviating cost and infrastructure problems.

Platini said that UEFA's executive committee, which met in Kiev on Saturday, had given a mandate to look into the proposal.

"There will be meetings with national federations and the decisions will be taken in December or January," he said on the eve of the Euro 2012 final between holders Spain and Italy.

"It (the tournament in 2020) will mark the 60th anniversary of the Euro. It could take place in 12 to 13 cities across Europe. I like the idea enormously and the vast majority of the executive committee found that it was a very good idea.

"Why should one or two host countries be obliged to build 10 stadiums, airports, etc.? Here, there'll be one stadium per country, per city, across Europe. It would be a lot simpler and cheaper."

Platini rejected suggestions that a competition across the continent would be prohibitively expensive for fans.

"There are low-cost companies," he told reporters, indicating that it could even be cheaper for supporters who have travelled between host cities in Poland and Ukraine and from outside over the last three weeks of competition.

Euro 2016 will take place in France, with the number of teams increasing from the current 16 to 24 for the first time.

With 53 national federations members of UEFA, that means that nearly half of all members will take part in the group stages of the finals, virtually guaranteeing the presence of all the major footballing nations on the continent.

For 2020, Turkey have already expressed their formal interest in hosting, although their bid is dependent on the outcome of an International Olympic Committee (IOC) decision on the summer Olympics that year.

Istanbul is one of the bid cities but IOC head Jacques Rogge has already said it is against the organisation's rules for one country to have two major sporting events in the same year.

It has also been reported that the Republic of Ireland, Scotland and Wales will submit a joint bid, as well as one from Georgia and Azerbaijan.

A decision on the 2020 tournament is scheduled to be made at the start of 2014, unless there is support for Platini's "Europe-wide" Euro, while the announcement for the host city of the 2020 Olympics will be made in September next year.

http://sport.iafrica.com/news/803223.html


----------



## www.sercan.de

1. Spain: Camp Nou or Bernabeu
2. Italya: San Siro
3. England: Wembley
4. France: Stade de France
5. Germany: Allianz maybe
6. Portigal: da Luz
7. Poland: Warsaw
8. Ukraine: Kyiv
9. Turkey: TTA
10. Netherlands: Amsterdam Arena
11. Russia: Moscow
12. Romania: National Stadium


----------



## potiz81

Athens olympic Stadium can replace Romania's or Istanbul's stadium.


----------



## Turkiiish

No ! 

I want Turkey to organize EURO 2020 or 2024.
A "UEFA Euro" in all Europe in 2028 or 2032 !


----------



## RobH

potiz81 said:


> Athens olympic Stadium can replace Romania's or Istanbul's stadium.


If UEFA go with this there's no way they won't compensate Turkey who have submitted a bid for 2020 only to have the goalposts moved. Istanbul would certainly get some matches I'd have thought!

This is certainly out of the blue though!


----------



## Turkiiish

I do not like this decision to Platini ! >(


----------



## alexandru.mircea

RobH said:


> This is certainly out of the blue though!


Having followed the 2020 bidding process, is it really out of the blue?


----------



## hingus2000

www.sercan.de said:


> 1. Spain: Camp Nou or Bernabeu
> 2. Italya: San Siro
> 3. England: Wembley
> 4. France: Stade de France
> 5. Germany: Allianz maybe
> 6. Portigal: da Luz
> 7. Poland: Warsaw
> 8. Ukraine: Kyiv
> 9. Turkey: TTA
> 10. Netherlands: Amsterdam Arena
> 11. Russia: Moscow
> 12. Romania: National Stadium


It is a nonsense idea, putting the interests of travelling fans to the bottom of the heap, and removing the festival atmosphere and national pride that infuses a host nation.

Also, the stadiums such as those you list, the biggest in each nation, have NO hope of being filled.

Could you see 90,000 people at Wembley for Austria v Estonia?


----------



## Turkiiish

hingus2000 said:


> It is a nonsense idea, putting the interests of travelling fans to the bottom of the heap, and removing the festival atmosphere and national pride that infuses a host nation.


+ 1 000 000 !


----------



## RobH

alexandru.mircea said:


> Having followed the 2020 bidding process, is it really out of the blue?


Yes. 2020 wouldn't be the first time an international body like the IOC or FIFA or UEFA has had a thin field to pick from. But they've never revamped their whole outlook because of it before, not to this extent!


----------



## www.sercan.de

Would prefer England or Germany and not this "whole Europe" thing


----------



## Fizmo1337

Stupid idea. If a match Croatia - Greece is played in Paris, croatian & greek fans should go to paris while dutch should go to moscow and some others somewhere in portugal. Ruins the atmosphere in a host country. It wouldn't be the same. There are already fan fests in the big cities for every match so atmosphere wise it wouldn't be much better.

I understand that while increasing the number of teams to 24, the options become smaller to chooses host countries but I still don't like this idea. Aslong as there are interesting bids like turkey or a scotland/wales/Ireland or Scandinavian bid that are feasible they should use these options.

Not to mention that all the big stadiums like camp nou or bernabeu would receive the biggest names. No thanks. There needs to be an incentive to build new stadiums, if needed, over 2 or 3 neighbouring countries but not all over europe.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

I think everyone would prefer a properly hosted tournament, including UEFA. But if the compromises imposed by the current bidding situation outweigh those of having a pan-European tournament, then why not. 



hingus2000 said:


> It is a nonsense idea, putting the interests of travelling fans to the bottom of the heap, and removing the festival atmosphere and national pride that infuses a host nation.


I'm not sure you are aware of what a EURO now means for traveling fans.

A drive from Gdansk to Donetsk is 1835 km, while a drive from London to Rome is 1775 km. A drive from Poznan to Kharkiv is 1532 km, while a drive from Barcelona to Frankfurt is 1336 km. 

Not to mention that roads would be better but, more importantly, there are plenty of direct low cost flights between the major European cities, while there were not between the provincial venues of the EURO.

Have you not followed the stories of fans and journalists trying to follow matches throughout the tournament?


----------



## dinamo_zagreb

I find Platini and UEFA mentally ill. Dear Jesus, what are they doing to the strongest football competition in the world. hno:hno:

What's next? Two years long championship divided in zones and divisions, like hockey?


----------



## Turkiiish

The UEFA Executive Committee today approved the timeline for bidders interested in hosting UEFA EURO 2020. UEFA will hold discussions with all national associations that will conclude with the publishing of the detailed bid regulations in December 2012. From then onwards associations interested in bidding should prepare their bid documentation ready for the deadline to submit bids to UEFA in September 2013. The submitted bids will then be evaluated and an announcement of the host(s) for UEFA EURO 2020 will be made in May 2014.

UEFA EURO 2020 will mark the 60th anniversary since the first-ever UEFA European Championship in 1960. Therefore, the Executive Committee also debated the potential hosting format for the final tournament in 2020, where one, two or more two host countries, or indeed several host cities, may be considered as eligible, depending on the precise model proposed.

UEFA


----------



## Harry1990

not a supporter of wacky ideas but one they could look at for 2020 if they want something to stand out is hosting it in one city ie London

Wembley- 90k
Twickenham- 82k
Emirates-60k
New WHL- around 60k
Stamford Bridge or new stadium- around 60k
Olympic Stadium- 60k
The Valley - Expanded from 27k to 31-40k
New Crystal Palace stadium- 40k
New QPR Stadium- 40k
Craven Cottage- 30k


----------



## alexandru.mircea

Harry1990 said:


> not a supporter of wacky ideas but one they could look at for 2020 if they want something to stand out is hosting it in one city ie London
> 
> Wembley- 90k
> Twickenham- 82k
> Emirates-60k
> New WHL- around 60k
> Stamford Bridge or new stadium- around 60k
> Olympic Stadium- 60k
> The Valley - Expanded from 27k to 31-40k
> New Crystal Palace stadium- 40k
> New QPR Stadium- 40k
> Craven Cottage- 30k


Interesting. Can London also receive one / one and a half million people besides the regular tourist entries? Btw, does anyone know what the overall attendance at the Summer Olympics usually is?

I don't think it would/should ever happen, but it's fun to speculate. The Confederations Cup could be hosted like that, though.


----------



## RobH

Harry1990 said:


> not a supporter of wacky ideas but one they could look at for 2020 if they want something to stand out is hosting it in one city ie London
> 
> Wembley- 90k
> Twickenham- 82k
> Emirates-60k
> New WHL- around 60k
> Stamford Bridge or new stadium- around 60k
> Olympic Stadium- 60k
> The Valley - Expanded from 27k to 31-40k
> New Crystal Palace stadium- 40k
> New QPR Stadium- 40k
> Craven Cottage- 30k


:applause:

Now THAT would be worth seeing!! :lol:


----------



## carnifex2005

Turkiiish said:


> Europe to host Euro 2020?
> 
> UEFA president Michel Platini on Saturday suggested that the 2020 edition of the European Championships may be held across Europe, instead of in one or two host countries in what will be its 60th anniversary.
> 
> "It's an idea," Platini told a news conference in the Ukrainian capital, Kiev. "There's nothing definitive. In December or January, we will decide whether we will take a bid for one country or two or all of Europe."
> 
> The former France international indicated that the 60th anniversary of the tournament in eight years' time could involve "12 or 13 cities across Europe", making organisation easier and alleviating cost and infrastructure problems.
> 
> Platini said that UEFA's executive committee, which met in Kiev on Saturday, had given a mandate to look into the proposal.
> 
> "There will be meetings with national federations and the decisions will be taken in December or January," he said on the eve of the Euro 2012 final between holders Spain and Italy.
> 
> "It (the tournament in 2020) will mark the 60th anniversary of the Euro. It could take place in 12 to 13 cities across Europe. I like the idea enormously and the vast majority of the executive committee found that it was a very good idea.
> 
> "Why should one or two host countries be obliged to build 10 stadiums, airports, etc.? Here, there'll be one stadium per country, per city, across Europe. It would be a lot simpler and cheaper."
> 
> Platini rejected suggestions that a competition across the continent would be prohibitively expensive for fans.
> 
> "There are low-cost companies," he told reporters, indicating that it could even be cheaper for supporters who have travelled between host cities in Poland and Ukraine and from outside over the last three weeks of competition.
> 
> Euro 2016 will take place in France, with the number of teams increasing from the current 16 to 24 for the first time.
> 
> With 53 national federations members of UEFA, that means that nearly half of all members will take part in the group stages of the finals, virtually guaranteeing the presence of all the major footballing nations on the continent.
> 
> For 2020, Turkey have already expressed their formal interest in hosting, although their bid is dependent on the outcome of an International Olympic Committee (IOC) decision on the summer Olympics that year.
> 
> Istanbul is one of the bid cities but IOC head Jacques Rogge has already said it is against the organisation's rules for one country to have two major sporting events in the same year.
> 
> It has also been reported that the Republic of Ireland, Scotland and Wales will submit a joint bid, as well as one from Georgia and Azerbaijan.
> 
> A decision on the 2020 tournament is scheduled to be made at the start of 2014, unless there is support for Platini's "Europe-wide" Euro, while the announcement for the host city of the 2020 Olympics will be made in September next year.
> 
> http://sport.iafrica.com/news/803223.html


Very, very good idea. It will help small countries be able to host a game in their best stadium instead of building or renovating new ones and it will share the cost of the tourney across the board as well. 
For example I could see group A play in a stadium each in Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England. Group B in France, Holland, Belgium and Switzerland and so on... No renovations needed because each country has a FIFA rated stadium already.


----------



## Fizmo1337

alexandru.mircea said:


> I think everyone would prefer a properly hosted tournament, including UEFA. But if the compromises imposed by the current bidding situation outweigh those of having a pan-European tournament, then why not.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure you are aware of what a EURO now means for traveling fans.
> 
> A drive from Gdansk to Donetsk is 1835 km, while a drive from London to Rome is 1775 km. A drive from Poznan to Kharkiv is 1532 km, while a drive from Barcelona to Frankfurt is 1336 km.
> 
> Not to mention that roads would be better but, more importantly, there are plenty of direct low cost flights between the major European cities, while there were not between the provincial venues of the EURO.
> 
> Have you not followed the stories of fans and journalists trying to follow matches throughout the tournament?


And who exactly needed to go from Gdansk to Donetsk?? Practically no one. You just picked the distance between the widest cities but you forget that barely any of them needed to go from gdansk to donetsk. Most of the time the distance was much shorter. In the previous Euro's (swi / aut ; portugal ; nl & be) the distance was minimal. It just happened to be 2 big countries now. 

And by the way: in such a proposal like this from uefa london to rome would be one of the shorter ones + EVERY team would need to make such a distance MULTIPLE times.


----------



## carnifex2005

Fizmo1337 said:


> And who exactly needed to go from Gdansk to Donetsk?? Practically no one. You just picked the distance between the widest cities but you forget that barely any of them needed to go from gdansk to donetsk. Most of the time the distance was much shorter. In the previous Euro's (swi / aut ; portugal ; nl & be) the distance was minimal. It just happened to be 2 big countries now.
> 
> And by the way: in such a proposal like this from uefa london to rome would be one of the shorter ones + EVERY team would need to make such a distance MULTIPLE times.


Big deal. In MLS they do this multiple times with longer distances with no issue. Besides I'm guessing each group game would be in countries close to each other.


----------



## IanCleverly

What it will mean, should this baffling idea gets the go ahead, is that the qualificaiton process will be shortened somewhat, as, don't forget the hosts qualify automatically.


----------



## carnifex2005

IanCleverly said:


> What it will mean, should this baffling idea gets the go ahead, is that the qualificaiton process will be shortened somewhat, as, don't forget the hosts qualify automatically.


I'm guessing in this case they won't, which is also awesome.


----------



## Laurence2011

they should for euro 2020 expand the format so every UEFA member can play in the tournament. no qualification, it would be huge and maybe last all year, 

Just for a laugh.


----------



## Fizmo1337

carnifex2005 said:


> Big deal. In MLS they do this multiple times with longer distances with no issue. Besides I'm guessing each group game would be in countries close to each other.


Yea, so? In the USA it's the only option because it's a massive country. Clubs will need to travel long distances to play another club. In Europe an uefa tournament can easily be organised in 1 or 2 countrie just like it is now. Why change it when it's already a good system? Just change it for the sake of it???



IanCleverly said:


> What it will mean, should this baffling idea gets the go ahead, is that the qualificaiton process will be shortened somewhat, as, don't forget the hosts qualify automatically.


??? The number of groups & the number of games to QF won't change with or without hosts who have to qualify...


----------



## alexandru.mircea

The Spanish fans had to travel from Gdansk to Donetsk. Portugal fans also had it it very complicated, with games in Lviv, Kharkiv, Warsaw and then Donetsk (only Warsaw to Donetsk is almost 1500km). Even the travel from Kiev to Donetsk was not easy if you didn't have tickets booked long before. Anyone who had to fly from Poland to Ukraine or vice versa had a tough time, because there are no direct flights, only with exchange at Kiev or Minsk. Besides the fans, it was also very complicated for journalists, who are very important people in a tournament. Some of them had to change country each few days. If you don't have the information then look it up before posting crap.


----------



## Rev Stickleback

alexandru.mircea said:


> The Spanish fans had to travel from Gdansk to Donetsk. Portugal fans also had it it very complicated, with games in Lviv, Kharkiv, Warsaw and then Donetsk (only Warsaw to Donetsk is almost 1500km). Even the travel from Kiev to Donetsk was not easy if you didn't have tickets booked long before. Anyone who had to fly from Poland to Ukraine or vice versa had a tough time, because there are no direct flights, only with exchange at Kiev or Minsk. Besides the fans, it was also very complicated for journalists, who are very important people in a tournament. Some of them had to change country each few days. If you don't have the information then look it up before posting crap.


Very few people, I'd have thought, would have driven though, just as few would ever consider driving from London to Rome.

People would have either flown or gone by train, which I'd much rather do in Eastern Europe due to the costs.

This was a very widespread tournament though, far more than any other tournament has been. 


Platini's idea is just a suggestion, not a plan. I would guess it's inspired by none of the 2020 candidates looking that strong.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

^ I know, this was the easiest way to get distances (Google directions or ViaMichelin). I don't know what the distances are in straight line. 

Driving from Poland to Ukraine or vice versa wasn't much of an option anyway because rented cars can't leave the country, so you'd have to drive your own car. Many people made the trips by bus, though (check out CNN's Tancredi Palmieri's diary of an exciting 15 hrs long bus trip from Warsaw to Kiev), or by hired vans / minibuses.

Here are some bits of Jonathan Wilson's travel experience at this EURO: http://betting.betfair.com/football...-no-sleep-no-joy-for-portugal-130612-184.html and http://betting.betfair.com/football...we-just-have-had-the-one-host-190612-184.html (he's a leading football writer, writes for Guardian, Sports Illustrated, edits The Blizzard, wrote "Beyond The Curtain", a book about football in Eastern Europe, etc.) As you can read, it wasn't easy at all to travel, even with train/flights. After that first diary entry he almost missed the semifinal in Donetsk because of a delay of the flight connection in Kiev.


----------



## Fabri88

alexandru.mircea said:


> A drive from Gdansk to Donetsk is 1835 km, while a drive from London to Rome is 1775 km. A drive from Poznan to Kharkiv is 1532 km, while a drive from Barcelona to Frankfurt is 1336 km.


I never thought about this! And that's impressive!

Polska/Ukraine 2012 teached us that a pan-Euro is possibile.

Who wrote that a 90,000 attendance for an Austria vs Estonia in Wembley is impossible he's right, but damn, we're humans, we could plan.

In Euro 2012 we've seen Germany vs Netherlands played in Kharkiv while Greece vs Russia was played in Warsaw. It should've been the opposite.

Then, there are plenty of stadias throughout Europe and obviously a pan-Euro tournament will not be hosted only in the biggest stadiums. There are more than 100 football stadiums with more than a 30,000 capacity!

Euro 2020 will be a 24-teams event, so divided in 6 groups. 2 stadias per group as it is now.

But let's see what are the Top12 football stadiums in Europe:

• Barcelona (Spain) - Camp Nou - 98,787
• London (England) - Wembley - 90,000
• Madrid (Spain) - Santiago Bernabeu - 85,454
• Paris / Saint Denis (France) - Stade de France - 81,338
• Dortmund (Germany) - Westfalenstadion - 80,720
• Milan (Italy) - Giuseppe Meazza / San Siro - 80,018
• Moscow (Russia) - Luzhniki - 78,360
• Istanbul (Turkey) - Atatürk Olimpiyat - 76,092
• Manchester (England) - Old Trafford - 75,811
• Cardiff (Wales) - Millennium Stadium - 74,500
• Berlin (Germany) - Olympiastadion - 74,228
• Rome (Italy) - Stadio Olimpico - 72,698

So let's imagine a Euro in those cities:

• Group A: Barcelona and Madrid - Driving Distance: 617 kms - Flight Time: 38 mins
• Group B: Manchester and Cardiff - DD 309 kms - FT 18 mins
• Group C: London and Paris - DD 454 kms - 28 mins
• Group D: Berlin and Dortmund - DD 596 kms - 36 mins
• Group E: Milan and Rome - DD 584 kms - 36 mins
• Group F: Istanbul and Moscow - DD 2,419 kms - FT 2h11m

But we're humans: we could easily imagine group F to be hosted in Moscow and Kiev (Olimpiyski) or in Istanbul and Bucharest (Arena Nationala) / Athens (Olympic Stadium).

The other groups are played in really near cities.


----------



## parcdesprinces

dinamo_zagreb said:


> What's next? Two years long championship divided in zones and divisions, like hockey?


This is exactly one of the ideas I had about a new version of the Euro.

I mean, to make it a real championship where all the 50+ federations/countries would be qualified and would play at home, a bit like the 6 Nation Rugby Championship. 

Instead of having a Euro every four years, we would have a "perpetual" Euro if I may say so, since it would take at least 4 years for the 50+ competitors to meet each-other in a two-legged format. And indeed we could also imagine a 2 conferences format like the NFL, with a final match like the Super Bowl or the UEFA Supercup.


----------



## Poul_

^^^I think it should be played only in the capitals ( i know Istanbul is not) , and it might look like:


----------



## GEwinnen

Fabri88 said:


> Maybe it's because I love London, but actually a Euro in London only is possible in my opinion!
> 
> London hosts at least 3 major football events every weekend (Chelsea, QPR, Arsenal, Tottenham, Fulham and West Ham are in EPL). Do you think they could have problems in hosting a Euro?


London can host it stadiumwise, no doubt (London is THE stadium capital of the world)! But what about the hundreds of thousands foreign football fans from 24 countries flooding London??
I recently spent a week in Berlin, a city half the size of London, I guess it is impossible for such a city to host even a tournament with 12 teams!

This idea is as stupid as Platini's idea to host it in 12 cities all over Europe. 
(For example the Rhine-Ruhr area (12,000,000 inh.) could host it as well

Dortmund 66,000 
Gelsenkirchen 54,000
Düsseldorf 52,000
Cologne 45,000
M'Gladbach 45,000
Leverkusen 30,000
Duisburg 30,000
Bochum 30,000

If Istanbul will get the olympics, Germany will join a bid (for the whole country). I doubt the UEFA would like another eastern european adventure like Georgia/Azerbijan!!


----------



## Sylver

All this Turkey crap can be done with if they just leave UEFA and join the muuslims


----------



## www.sercan.de

come on.


----------



## endrity

Sylver said:


> All this Turkey crap can be done with if they just leave UEFA and join the muuslims


why is is that the polish are always coming up with shit like this to say???


----------



## uğur1

Poland was looser in last 300 years in the europe like Spain and Portugal,I think because of that.


----------



## Fallout

Or Turkey. It's intra-looser rivalry.


----------



## serdariko

Another polish idiot to bring religion to this Euro 2020 discussion you backward brain.


----------



## k%

oxo said:


> The quarter finals, semi finals and final could be held in Scotland, both Irelands and Wales. All the 6 group games could be held in 12 stadiums dotted around the rest of Europe.
> 
> Example:
> Group 1. Wembley and Amsterdam
> Group 2. Moscow and Kiev
> Group 3. Prague and Warsaw
> Group 4. Budapest and Bucharest
> Group 5. Istanbul and Athens
> Group 6. Stockholm and Copenhagen
> 
> Showcase round games: Glasgow, Belfast, Dublin, Cardiff.
> 
> This way, a lot of nations get a fair share of the pie whilst the tournament ''proper'' would be hosted by the Celtic nations as is consistent with their current bid.


Where is Rome (Milan), Madrid, Paris or Lisbon ?

At least one of this pairs (Warsaw- Prague, Moscow- Kiev, Istanbul- Athens or Budapest- Bucharest) must be out.


----------



## www.sercan.de

As far as i understand it will be just one city per country


----------



## vitaming

endrity said:


> why is is that the polish are always coming up with shit like this to say???


Spare a thought for the Poles. They eat bland food, drink tasteless spirits, and live where both the buildings and sky are gray. It's enough that some of them actually choose to move to places like Limerick and Glasgow.


----------



## RobH

Don't let Sylver spoil this thread. His posts on the British got the Euro 2012 thread locked for a few days, and his post on the Turkish above is about as relevent as that was. He's not impressed with any of his contributions so far.

So, do we think UEFA will go with a pan-Europe Euros? And what was that on the previous page about Turkey's bid not being accepted? Can someone explain?


----------



## robbery4774

vitaming said:


> Spare a thought for the Poles. They eat bland food, drink tasteless spirits, and live where both the buildings and sky are gray. It's enough that some of them actually choose to move to places like Limerick and Glasgow.


Now you're not any better than him and starting to talk sh** about a whole country.


----------



## robbery4774

My favourite is scotland/ireland/wales. But i could live with italy or turkey also. turkey deserve the EURO and italy need it to develop their stadium infrastructure. Sad to see that this big football nation is still on the level of wc 90 besides Turin with the new stadium. They need a kick in their ass, so they don't loose the connection to modern football. italian stadiums are the worst of the worse

I'm not a big fan of 2 or 3 hosts, but i think scotland/wales/ireland could work very well. 1. distance between those 3 is very small
2. They speak all the same language and similar culture
3. good infrastructure and already some decent stadiums. I counted 3 scottish, 2 irish and 2 walisian stadiums, which are ready for a EURO. So not much to build. I'm sure this EURO could have a special charming atmosphere.


----------



## vitaming

robbery4774 said:


> Now you're not any better than him and starting to talk sh** about a whole country.


No. 

I didn't generalize about the inherent traits of Poles, just their lifestyles.

A bit different from saying Turkey should leave UEFA because they're Moozlums.


----------



## Marbur66

vitaming said:


> No.
> 
> I didn't generalize about the inherent traits of Poles, just their lifestyles.
> 
> A bit different from saying Turkey should leave UEFA because they're Moozlums.


Yes, you're right. Your post was much more balanced and informative. :nuts: If I judged an entire nation based on my experience with one idiot from that group, I would have no one left to talk to.


----------



## vitaming

Except it's not just one person. Time after time Polish people make the same comments on threads about Turkey. Clearly I'm not the only one to notice this.


----------



## Sylver

endrity said:


> why is is that the polish are always coming up with shit like this to say???


There is no need to generalize other Polish people, if anything direct it at me. Its not a secret that all of Europe doesnt want Turkey in any area of politics and large tournaments. 



serdariko said:


> Another polish idiot to bring religion to this Euro 2020 discussion you backward brain.


Another delusional Turk who thinks that Turkey is only being judged based on infrastructure. 



vitaming said:


> Spare a thought for the Poles. They eat bland food, drink tasteless spirits, and live where both the buildings and sky are gray. It's enough that some of them actually choose to move to places like Limerick and Glasgow.


Why are you making things up? I didnt mean to offend anyone but now it shows that you're tasteless because you have no idea what you're talking about.



RobH said:


> Don't let Sylver spoil this thread. His posts on the British got the Euro 2012 thread locked for a few days, and his post on the Turkish above is about as relevent as that was. He's not impressed with any of his contributions so far.
> 
> So, do we think UEFA will go with a pan-Europe Euros? And what was that on the previous page about Turkey's bid not being accepted? Can someone explain?


This thread has been "spoiled" many times with issues that should be discussed. I only posted once on the British Euro 2012 thread and that was to laugh at the video produced about the London Olympics violence video in response to the BBC one about Euro. But because you have temper issues you blame others to make yourself feel better and act like whatever you say actually means something.



vitaming said:


> No.
> I didn't generalize about the inherent traits of Poles, just their lifestyles.
> 
> A bit different from saying Turkey should leave UEFA because they're Moozlums.


Lifestyles? Are you stuck in the 15th century? You're no better.



vitaming said:


> Except it's not just one person. Time after time Polish people make the same comments on threads about Turkey. Clearly I'm not the only one to notice this.


If anything, its not just Poland.


----------



## Messi

> There is no need to generalize other Polish people, if anything direct it at me. Its not a secret that all of Europe doesnt want Turkey in any area of politics and large tournaments.


I don't think that anyone with an average mentality has anything against Turkey being the host of any European tournament. Contrary I have heard European media having doubts about Poland being a host country. In a country where football supporters "insult" each other as Jews in the stadiums or hooligan groups meet just to smash each other's faces for fun.

But since you have been kicked down and finished EURO 2012 without one single victory in your own country I doubt you'll qualify for 2020 in the case it will take place in Turkey. So everyone happy, you won't need to come to a muslim country and we'll have less danger of hooligans :cheers:


----------



## vitaming

Sylver said:


> There is no need to generalize other Polish people, if anything direct it at me. Its not a secret that all of Europe doesnt want Turkey in any area of politics and large tournaments.


What a pity that you surround yourself with backward fools who don't challenge your ridiculous notions. 

Honestly, try saying that to a group of young people in Paris or London and see what reaction you'll get. You'd be told to p*** off back to the concrete housing block you crawled out of in no uncertain terms.


----------



## Messi

He's from a place where football supporters insult each other as Jews in a stadium. Do you accept him to be more open towards muslims? I do not! I am not saying that about all Polish people but he certainly belongs to those kind of people.


----------



## Chrechan

EURO 2020 in southeastern Europe

The idea is to make the EURO 2020 in several countries makes sense. In particular, it corresponds to the small countries that can hardly organize it. But together it certainly can arrange excellent. In the southeastern Europe there is just that. Imagine the following cities in the competition:

Istanbul (11.000.000) – Ataturk Olympic stadium (2001.) 76.092 
Athens (800.000) – Olympic stadium (2004.) 72.080 
Bucharest (1.700.000) – Arena Nationala (2011.) 55.600
Sofia (1.150.000) – new stadium 50.000
Skopje (480.000) – Philip II Arena (2011.) 36.400
Belgrade (1.200.000) – Red Star stadium (1963. - renov.) 55.500
Sarajevo (460.000) – Koševo Olympic stadium (1984 - renov.) 35.630
Zagreb (800.000) – Maksimir stadium (1997. - revov.) 50.000
Budapest (1.600.000) – new stadium 50.000
Vienna (1.540.000) – Ernst Happel stadium (1986.) 50.000
Bratislava (450.000) – new stadium 40.000
Prague (1.165.000) – new stadium 50.000


----------



## Sylver

lol turks are joining together and bashing. Its easy to feel above someone when you have others backing you up, no matter how stupid and delusional they may be.


----------



## vitaming

Not a Turk, nor am I a nefarious Muslim. I just think you're talking rubbish.

In fact I have some Polish blood, not that someone like you makes me particularly proud of it.


----------



## Chrechan

Messi said:


> I don't think that anyone with an average mentality has anything against Turkey being the host of any European tournament.


I have nothing against Istanbul. Turk Telekom Arena and Ataturk Olympic Stadium is located in Europe. But I'm not for the competition further in Asia.


----------



## Bulgariologist

People!

I am new at Skyscrapercity. I don't have anything against any country on any continent.

Let's stop arguing. This discussion is _only_ about UEFA EURO 2020 bids, as the title states. So! I have the following proposals for upcoming EUROs.

*EURO 2020*: would be best if it was in Turkey, but if His Majesty Sir Platini the Hero of EURO'84 says no, then no. Unless he changes her mind. Or maybe Turkey/TFF doesn't want? I see that here at SSC the Turks and most others support the Turkish bid. If Turkey finally decides to bid and everyone approves, I'll be happy.

And the Polish one, stop with the nonsense. You've had your EURO (you could have done better at it but with only one *player*, how's that possible?!), you have 4 brand new or fully renovated stadiums of FIFA class, you'll have even more in the future, now calm down. No need to insult Turks because I can tell you, generally they are very modern and friendly people and Turkey is a very secular state. Is it not stupid to blame a nation for being Muslim? I, as a Bulgarian, should have much more reasons than you to hate Turkey, but, shockingly enough, I _don't_. We're all _friends_ in our region, no matter what we sometimes say and what the West (and sometimes Russia, though I like Russia and its culture) have been forcing the Balkans to do through the centuries. We love each other, and this is not going to change because of _I am Orthodox Christian, he is Roman Catholic, she is Muslim, you are Asians, they have ruled over us for almost 5 centuries._ Anyway.

If Turkey doesn't bid, I support either the Caucasian or the Celtic bid, or the Scandinavian 3-bid. Big countries like England, Germany, France, Spain are better for World Cups or, eventually, we could take an order, for example like this: 2012 - Eastern Europe, 2, weak; 2016 - Western Europe, 1, very strong; 2020 - Eastern Europe, 1, middle (like Turkey); 2024 - either Western Europe, 2 or 3, middle/strong (like it was in EURO 2000 and 2008) or an all Europe EURO for variety. And so on, and so forth.

I don't see my favourite bid - Hungary-Romania-Bulgaria, being realized till after at least 10 years. So maybe if 2020 is in Western Europe also (if it's the Celtic bid or some big country like Germany) then 2024 could be our turn. Or if not, then we'll wait. I can wait. I just turned 17.  That was from me for this night.


----------



## Rikirasingwa

Euro 2020 in bosnia?


----------



## Bulgariologist

In Bosnia?! I doubt it has more chances than Bulgaria in terms of hosting a UEFA alone. In other words - no chances.  Other than that, it would be nice if Serbia and Croatia could bid together with BiH. These three countries would present a much stronger bid. I support all bids from the Balkans.


----------



## PrevaricationComplex

Lol at a Romanian bid. Even Poland didn't manage to avoid building stadiums they can't fill, and they're an actual developed Country.

Besides with the recent Ukrainian experience, we've already done the eastern 'European' pale of settlement backward gypsie villages thingy. It's sooo 2012. Time to move on. Mafia states are so passé.


----------



## PrevaricationComplex

^^ It's probably better that you type in Spanish. Not all westerners are fluent in Spanish, but absolutely no one is fluent in gibberish.


EDIT: Our Spanish friend's comment appear to have been deleted, shame seemed like such a nice chap.


----------



## oxo

vitaming said:


> Except it's not just one person. Time after time Polish people make the same comments on threads about Turkey. Clearly I'm not the only one to notice this.


You'll find that Poles come in two polar opposites - either unbelievably stupid or incredibly intelligent. No middle ground (maybe that's why they're called 'Poles' ).


----------



## PrevaricationComplex

oxo said:


> You'll find that Poles come in two polar opposites - either unbelievably stupid or incredibly intelligent. No middle ground (maybe that's why they're called 'Poles' ).


You can say that about any Country though, Stephen Hawking > Sun readers etc etc.


----------



## Bulgariologist

All right, have your EURO wherever you like. Seems like Eastern Europe can do nothing to lift prejudices. Seems like we'll have EUROs in boring Western European countries only. At least we in the East are on our way to becoming rising powers in football, and you'll have hard time with us in the future. We all want to develop, if you don't know.

Your British sarcasm didn't hit right, I'm sorry. :lol:


----------



## Bulgariologist

Aah, was your comment about _another_ reply? I understand. You wouldn't have said that for my reply, would you?hno:


----------



## GEwinnen

Bulgariologist said:


> Seems like we'll have EUROs in boring Western European countries only.



And where is Ukraine? In western Europe???:bash:
Or did you miss the Euro 2012??


----------



## PaulFCB

No Romanian bid for 2020, surely no Romanian bid for 2024 or just one to prove that they're attention whores and want to be seen at the congress.
I hope no Romanian bid for any Euro, this tournament should be for Western Europe.


----------



## Bulgariologist

I meant from now on. I implied that Platini and UEFA don't generally want EUROs to take place in Eastern Europe. 2012 was an experiment which they would hardly repeat.

And no, I watched most matches of EURO 2012.


----------



## oxo

PrevaricationComplex said:


> You can say that about any Country though, Stephen Hawking > Sun readers etc etc.


But there is an identifiable middle ground in which people are neither particularly stupid or amazingly intelligent either.

Anyway, I hope we see the last of solo hosts after France hosts the 2016 Championship. The multi-nation bids for Euro are much more interesting.


----------



## Kobo

The English FA have put forward Wembley to host the final for Euro 2020
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/sep/24/wembley-euro-2020-uefa-final


----------



## John479

It's time for Turkey, not because I am Turkish but because it's really time.


----------



## bieber

John479 said:


> It's time for Turkey, not because I am Turkish but because it's really time.


 and because turkey likes football !


----------



## Leedsrule

Only putting this in quotes as I put it on the Euro 2024 thread a few days ago but this is my interpiration of the 2020 bids. 



Leedsrule said:


> Turkey have declared intrest in holding Euro 2020, along with the Celtic nations (Scotland, Ireland, Wales) and Azerbaijan–Georgia.
> 
> 
> 
> Turkey are also applying to hold the Olympics in the same year in Istanbul. Turkey failed in a joint bid with Greece for Euro 2008 and was unsuccessful as the sole bidder in the 2 subsequent tournaments: Euro 2012 and Euro 2016. In its bid to host the 2016 tournament, Turkey missed out to France by a single vote. Turkey's bid may be prejudiced by Istanbul's bid for the 2020 Summer Olympics. UEFA and the IOC are not keen on having two major sporting events in the same country in the same year. The Turkish goverment favours the Olympic bid over the Euro's bid.
> 
> In terms of stadia, Turkey currently have 8 stadia which hold over the 30,000 minimum. However, out of these a few may not be suitable.
> 
> *Atatürk Olimpiyat Stadi*
> City: Istanbul
> Capacity: 76,090
> Built: 2001
> Has held the Champions league final a few years ago, it was granted the "5-star sports complex" title by the UEFA in 2004, enabling it to host the finals of UEFA events. If I remember correctly, if the Olympic bid is succesful they will improve the stadium by roofing the entire thing and possibly incresing the capacity. Would almost certanly hold the Euro's final if hey won the bid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Türk Telekom Arena*
> City: Istanbul
> Capacity: 52,647
> Built: 2011
> One of the newest stadiums in Turkey. However, I think i read somewhere that the C-values (A value devised from the quality of the sightlines relitive to the height of the person in the row infront) are not good enough to hold matches in the Euro's. if I am incorrect, then this will certainly be used.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Fenerbahçe Sükrü Saracoglu Stadi*
> City: Istanbul
> Capacity: 50,500
> Built: 2005
> The third biggest stadium in Istanbul. I don't think Uefa like any city to have more than 2 of the stadia in it, but as it is such a good stadium im sure they would make an exeption rather than make them leave it out. Would be a waste if they don't use it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kadir Has Stadi
> City: Ankara
> Capacity: 32,864
> Built: 2009
> I don't know much about this stadium, but I assume it will be used as it is big enough and modern enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *GAP Stadyumu*
> City: Sanliurfa
> Capacity: 30,000
> Built: 2008
> Not sure how likely this is to be used but if it is im sure it will be the most easterly stadium in the competition.
> 
> There are also 4 stadia which will meet the requirements to hold matches at the Europian Championships currently in development. These are:
> 
> *Timsah Arena*
> City: Bursa
> Capacity: 45,000
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Besiktas Inönü Stadi*
> City: Istanbul
> Capacity: 42,000
> The home of Besiktas JK currently being renovated. Another stadium in Istanbul so possibly will not be used.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Şehir Stadi*
> City: Konya
> Capacity: 38-42,000
> Several websites give different figures to the capacity of this stadium in Konya, will definately be between 38 and 42k.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Akyazi Stadi*
> City: Trabzon
> Capacity: 42,000
> As far as I know this stadium is currently under construction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://stadiumdb.com/designs/tur
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 14 May 2012, a day prior to the initial proposed deadline for submissions and with only the Turkish bid having been put forward, Scottish Football Association Chief Executive Stewart Regan confirmed that the SFA and the Football Association of Wales were discussing a late joint bid to host the tournament. A day after we were told that the Scottish and Welsh FA's had teamed up with the Football Association of Ireland were interested in hosting the tournament together.
> 
> Scotland will hold the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow in 2014 and and is also bidding to host the 2018 Summer Youth Olympics.
> 
> There are currently 7 stadia with a seated capacity of over 30,000 in the 3 nations.
> 
> *Murrayfield *
> City: Edinburgh
> Capacity: 67,500
> Built: 1925
> Home of the Scottish national rugby team, this venue could easily be converted for football. This is currently the largest stadium in Scotland.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Celtic Park *
> City: Glasgow
> Capacity: 60,506
> Built: 1892
> The second largest stadium in Scotland and home of Celtic, the biggest team in Scotland. Both Ibrox and Hamden park have a 5 star UEFA rating, however, this does not. This may be because of the insufficiant facilities and restricted views in many areas of the ground. Because of this, if glasgow were only allowed to use 2 stadia they may not pick this one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Hampden Park *
> City: Glasgow
> Capacity: 50,670
> Built: 1903
> Will be used as the main stadium in the 2014 commonwealth games, however the running track currently round the football pitch is too short so they are building the running track for the games a couple of feet above the normal playing surface on a temporary platform. Because of this useless running track around the football pitch, it would make sense to remove it and lower the playing surface incresing the capacity in a way similar to the Ethihad stadium in Manchester after the 2002 commonweath games. Potentialy, this stadiums capacity could be incresed to 70k plus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Ibrox stadium *
> City: Glasgow
> Capacity: 51,080
> Built: 1899
> The second largest stadium in Glasgow. The city may face the same problem as Istanbul with three stadiums in one city, they may have to choose between them. Talks have taken place in the past regaring the extending of Ibrox but as the main stand is a listed building, this will have to stay how it is. Due to the clubs current financial predicament, they are not in a situation where extending Ibrox would be viable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Millennium Stadium *
> City: Cardiff
> Capacity: 74,500
> Built: 1999
> Wales may only hold one group in the group stages, but the Millennium stadium is a good contender to hold the final. It was built in 1999 and holds nearly 75k, expansion to at least 80k has also been discussed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Liberty Stadium *
> City: Swansea
> Capacity: 20,532
> Built: 2005
> Home of Swansea city, the Liberty Stadium is currently too small to hold Europian Championship games but there is a good chance it will be upgraded to the required 30,000 if they win the bid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Cardiff City Stadium *
> City: Cardiff
> Capacity: 26,830
> Built: 2009
> A stadium that was built with future expansion considered, could easily be extended to 30,000 but as it is in the same city as the Millennium stadium, it is more likely to be a reserve for the competition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Aviva Stadium *
> City: Dublin
> Capacity: 50,000
> Built: 2010
> The Ireland national Football and Rugby Stadium, built in 2010 and holding 50k. Would definately be used in the competition if they win the bid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Croke Park*
> City: Dublin
> Capacity: 82,300 (69,500 seated)
> Built: 1913
> The national stadium of Ireland, used for Gaelic games such as Hurling and Gaelic Football but has been used for Association Football before so it will probably be used if they win the bid. Has a large terrace at one end which would either need to be converted, temporarily built over or just closed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Thomond Park *
> City: Limerick
> Capacity: 26,500 (15,100 seated)
> Built: 1940
> Has 2 new stands at either side, but temporary stands could easily be installed at either end and seats put in the lower tier to bring the capacity temporarily up to 30,000 seats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New stadiums:
> 
> *New Aberdeen Stadium *
> City: Abedeen
> Capacity: 22,000
> Aberdeen are looking at building a new stadium holding just over 20,000 but if the bid is succesful they could increse it to 30,000 to meet requiremets.
> 
> *New Dundee Stadium *
> City: Dundee
> Capacity: 30,000
> Was once an option to build a stadium for both Dundee teams but is less likely to happen now with strict fan opposition.
> 
> *Páirc Uí Chaoimh*
> City: Cork
> Capacity: 45,000
> A new stadium in Cork, the second biggest city in Ireland which will hold somewhere between 30 and 45k depending on if they win the bid. I can't find any pictures of this proposal.
> 
> 
> 
> Azerbaijan–Georgia were the third party to declare interest in holding the competition. Ultimately, the Baku bid for the 2020 Summer Olympics by the Azerbaijani capital may put this bid in jeopardy. On 8 March 2012, the Olympics bid chief Konul Nurullayeva said that the nations' focus was on the Olympics.
> 
> There are only a couple stadiums currently ready to hold the competition and some stadiums are being built.
> 
> *Boris Paichadze Stadium*
> City: Tbilisi
> Capacity: 55,000
> Built: 1976
> The biggest stadium in Georgia and currently the only large enough to hold games in the tournament.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Mikheil Meshki Stadium*
> City: Tbilisi
> Capacity: 27,300
> Built: 2001
> Would not take a huge amount of work to bring it up to the required standard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Tofiq Bakhramov Stadium*
> City: Baku
> Capacity: 31,200
> Built: 1952
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New Stadiums:
> 
> *Baku Olympic Stadium*
> City: Baku
> Capacity: 65,000
> Supporting the cities Olympic bid the same year, this stadium would hold the final of the Euros if they won the bidding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a good chance they will not chose to bid in the end, personally I do not see they are ready and too many new stadiums would need to be built.
> 
> 
> 
> Six potential bids including nine National Federations that had previously stated their interest in hosting Euro 2020 have withdrawn or failed to follow up their interest since the start of the bidding process.
> 
> Belgium
> Bosnia and Herzegovina–Croatia–Serbia
> Bulgaria–Romania or Hungary-Romania
> Germany
> Netherlands
> 
> These nations can still bid later.
> 
> 
> Proposal for a Europe-wide Euro 2020:
> 
> On 30 June 2012, at a press conference a day before the UEFA Euro 2012 Final, UEFA President Michel Platini suggested that instead of having one host country (or joint hosting by multiple countries), Euro 2020 may be spread over "12 or 13 cities" across the continent. Platini confirmed that the final decision would be taken in January or February 2013.
> 
> If this is chosen to happen, the FA have expressed strong intrest in Wembley holding both semi's and the final.
> 
> This december we will find out the decision about wether Euro 2020 should be spread across the European continent. UEFA will also publish the detailed bidding criteria.
> 
> There isn't too much information at this time, but I think if they decide to make Euro 2020 Europe-wide they will ask for cities, teams or countries to bid with their stadia then 10 or 12, only one per country, are picked. The tournament would then be played over a longer period of time any you are told where your game will be played anywhere in Europe. There are several prolems with this in my opinion.
> 
> Smaller countries may not be able to afford the travel fee's.
> No particular country would benifit from the incresed tourism as a host or co-host.
> The counties with the stadiums would almost be randomly placed around Europe, with the bigger countries holding it in 2020 it may end up being 12 very small countries holding it a few years after.
> If you do it once, they kind of have to continuously do it from now on.
> More inconvinient for travelling fans.
> Arguments may come up over holding your countries games in your country, and with no clear hosts if Spain for example were to play England, both with a stadium in the tournament, where would you play it to void large travelling distances or bias towards the home team.
> 
> I like the current system of one or two or even three countries holding the entire tournament and I hope they keep it that way. Personally i think Turkey will win their Olympic bid, so will withdraw their Euro's bid, and the Celts will win it and hold it in 2020. With all the English fans I cant see any of the stadiums going empty, and I think UEFA will warm to the bid as a safe option as mot of the stadiums are built already. Azerbaijan or Georgia may hold it in the future but not for another couple of decades yet. It will be interesting to see if anyone else declares intrest or bids in the coming months.
> 
> All pictures were take from Worldstadiums.com and Stadiumdb.com


----------



## Turkiiish

*Azeri Sports Minister Blasts Platini's Euro 2020 Plan*
http://www.worldfootballinsider.com/Story.aspx?id=35371


----------



## jpgjohnnyg

Nice article above and sums up the problem quite well which is basically by expanding the tournament to 24 teams UEFA have completley f**ked up a great tournament


----------



## Hendycfc

People who are saying Turkey deserve the Euros most... why?

Scotland took part in the first official football game ever against England in Scotland and overall the country has a long history linked to football yet they have never got to host a major football tournament. For that reason and also that the Celtic bid is pretty solid, Scotland/ Wales and Ireland deserve it most.

Also at earlier post, I feel as if Celtic Park would be easily chosen over Ibrox. There have been plans before on upgrades to the stadium and after the commenwealth games, the area around celtic park will be alot more welcoming and visually appeasing compared to Ibrox.


----------



## plasticterminator

EURO 2020 MULTI NATIONS

GROUP A SPAIN(1) SWEDEN (12) ROMANIA (18) NORWAY (24)
1 v 2 SPAIN V SWEDEN estadio santiago bernabau
3 v 4 ROMANIA V NORWAY lia manoliu
1 v 3 SPAIN V ROMANIA
2 v 4 SWEDEN V NORWAY solna arena
1 v 4 SPAIN V NORWAY ullevaal stadion
2 v 3 SWEDEN V ROMANIA

GROUP B GERMANY(2) CZR (11) SLOVAKIA (17) POLAND (23)
1 v 2 GERMANY V CZR Berlin Olympic stadion
3 v 4 SLOVAKIA V POLAND stadion pasienky
1 v 3 GERMANY V SLOVAKIA
2 v 4 CZR V POLAND
1 v 4 GERMANY V POLAND warsaw
2 v 3 CZR V SLOVAKIA

GROUP C HOLLAND (3) GREECE (10) DENMARK (16) FINLAND (22)
1 v 2 
3 v 4 
1 v 3
2 v 4
1 v 4
2 v 3

GROUP D ITALY(4) RUSSIA (9) TURKEY (15) BULGARIA (21)
1 v 2 
3 v 4 
1 v 3 
2 v 4
1 v 4
2 v 3

GROUP E ENGLAND (5) FRANCE (8) SERBIA (14) ISRAEL (20)
1 v 2
3 v 4
1 v 3
2 v 4
1 v 4
2 v 3

GROUP F CROATIA (6) PORTUGAL (7) SWITZERLAND (13) UKRAINE (19)
1 v 2
3 v 4
1 v 3
2 v 4
1 v 4
2 v 3

ROUND OF 16

MATCH 1 1A V 3 SPAIN V DENMARK stade de france
MATCH 2 1B V 3 GERMANY V TURKEY stadio drago
MATCH 3 1C V 3 HOLLAND V SERBIA
MATCH 4 1D V 3 ITALY V SWITZERLAND wembley
MATCH 5 1E V 2 ENGLAND V PORTUGAL san siro
MATCH 6 1F V 2 CROATIA V FRANCE amsterdam arena
MATCH 7 2 V 2 SWEDEN V CZR allianz arena
MATCH 8 2 V 2 GREECE V RUSSIA camp nou

ROUND OF 8
MATCH 1 SPAIN V RUSSIA estadio santiago bernabau
MATCH 2 GERMANY V CZR allianz arena
MATCH 3 HOLLAND V CROATIA amsterdam arena
MATCH 4 ITALY V ENGLAND san siro

SEMI FINAL 1 SPAIN V HOLLAND
SEMI FINAL 2 GERMANY V ITALY

FINAL SPAIN V GERMANY OAKA/WEMBLEY/LUZHNIKI/BERNABAU/SAN SIRO/STADE DE FRANCE/KIEV/ATATURK

Only stadiums from the 24 countries qualified would be used.
The format is just made up because its not decided yet and it assumes 2 from each group plus best four 3rd placed teams. Each team gets to play one home game in a stadium of their choice-the actual home ties would be decided by lottery. All the teams are just for example and have been chosen from the current* top 24 ranked teams. There would be no host and the 2016 winner would qualify automatically-we must assume the 2016 winner is likely to be already ranked in top 24 nations! The 2 games not designated as home games would be played in venues already selected for home games from other groups chosen randomly. Therefore fans would have to travel to one home game and two away games in group stage.
*taken from 2009 rankings just for example purposes.
Round of 16 would be pre drawn and set so all 3rd place had to play 1st place leaving one 1st place against 2nd and two 2nd v 2nd placed matches. The venues for round of 16 would be pre determined from the top 8 ranked nations.
The venues for the round of 8 would be pre selected from countries of top 4 ranked teams at start of 2020.
The venues for semi final would be pre determined random style lottery draw of all teams in top 24 with a stadium with a capacity of 50,000 or more only which based on the current ranking and stadiums would rule out the following teams-Norway, Israel, Denmark,Slovakia,serbia, switzerland and croatia.
Final would be same format random draw from top 24 but this time with 80,000 or more seats only.


----------



## Le Clerk

PaulFCB said:


> No Romanian bid for 2020, surely no Romanian bid for 2024 or just one to prove that they're attention whores and want to be seen at the congress.
> I hope no Romanian bid for any Euro, this tournament should be for Western Europe.


Romania/Bucharest will formally launch its bid for 2020.










http://www.bucharestherald.com/spor...onal-arena-bucuretiul-si-a-depus-candidatura-


----------



## PaulFCB

Le Clerk said:


> Romania/Bucharest will formally launch its bid for 2020.


 That's something totally different, not Romania hosting a tournament, it's only a proposal of Platini to host the tournament all across Europe and Bucharest might be one of the 12/13 cities to host some games if no country is able to bid for it, but Romania isn't hosting any tournament unless it's a U-17 Mens or Womens Euro Cup :nuts:.


plasticterminator said:


> EURO 2020 MULTI NATIONS


 Is this your idea of it? Cause I don't think it's logical for teams to play at home or away in a tournament with one game per round :nuts:. 
Probably 12/13 cities will host and everything will go down to luck if someone manages to catch a home game even though they can simply choose one unlikely stadium that could host it's own NT in a final, like London or Paris ( :troll: ).
Still, **** this shit, find a country or 2/3 neighboring ones to host, it simply turns into anything but a final tournament if this plan is accepted.


----------



## Gombos

nice.


----------



## Leedsrule

@plasticterminator
Is that actualy how it would work or just how you think it would work? Like PaulFCB said I doubt they would allow teams to play at home in their own country.

If I was in charge, and those were the groups, this is the stadiums i'd use and where i'd send them:

Group A South Europe
1. Spain 2. Sweden 3. Romania 4. Norway
1 vs 2 (Atatürk Olimpiyat Stadium, Turkey)
3 vs 4 (Athens Olympic Stadium, Greece)
4 vs 1 (San Siro, Italy)
2 vs 3 (Türk Telekom Arena, Turkey)
1 vs 3 (Stadio Olimpico, Italy)
2 vs 4 (Philip II Arena, Macedonia)

Group B West Europe
1. Germany 2. Czech Republic 3. Slovakia 4. Poland
1 vs 2 (Santiago Bernabeu, Spain)
3 vs 4 (Estádio do Dragão, Portugal)
4 vs 1 (Estadio San Mames Barria, Spain)
2 vs 3 (Nou Mestalla, Spain)
1 vs 3 (Estádio da Luz, Portugal)
2 vs 4 (Camp Nou, Spain)

Group C Central Europe
1. Holland 2. Greece 3. Denmark 4. Finland
1 vs 2 (Bullen Arena, Austria)
3 vs 4 (Stade de Suisse, Switzerland)
4 vs 1 (Ernst Happel Stadion, Austria)
2 vs 3 (St. Jakob Park, Switzerland)
1 vs 3 (Allianz Arena, Germany)
2 vs 4 (Hypo Group Arena, Austria)

Group D Scandinavia (Including Scotland)
1. Italy 2. Turkey 3. Russia 4. Bulgaria
1 vs 2 (Nya Ullevi Stadion, Sweden)
3 vs 4 (Parken Stadion, Denmark)
4 vs 1 (Celtic Park, Scotland)
2 vs 3 (New National Stadium, Norway)
1 vs 3 (Friends Arena, Sweden)
2 vs 4 (Hampden Park, Scotland)

Group E Eastern Europe
1. England 2. France 3. Serbia 4. Israel
1 vs 2 (New Zenit Stadium, Russia)
3 vs 4 (Stadion Narodowy, Poland)
4 vs 1 (Stadion NSK Olimpiyskiy, Ukraine)
2 vs 3 (National Arena, Romania)
1 vs 3 (Luzhniki Stadion, Russia)
2 vs 4 (Donbass Arena, Ukraine)

Group F North Europe
1. Croatia 2. Ukraine 3. Switzerland 4. Portugal
1 vs 2 (Millenium Stadium, Wales)
3 vs 4 (Emirates Stadium, England)
4 vs 1 (Amsterdam Arena, Netherlands)
2 vs 3 (Stade de France, France)
1 vs 3 (Old Trafford, England)
2 vs 4 (Signal Iduna Park, Germany)



Round of 16 (Not entirely sure on the format)
R1- Winner A vs Best Loser 1 (Friends Arena, Sweden)
R2- Winner B vs Best Loser 2 (Athens Olympic Stadium, Greece)
R3- Winner C vs Best Loser 3 (Estádio da Luz, Portugal)
R4- Winner D vs Best Loser 4 (Allianz Arena, Germany)
R5- Winner E vs Runner Up A (Aviva Stadium, Ireland) 
R6- Winner F vs Runner Up B (Amsterdam Arena, Netherlands)
R7- Runner Up C vs Runner Up D (Stadion NSK Olimpiyskiy, Ukraine)
R8- Runner Up E vs Runner Up F (National Arena, Romania)

Quater Finals
QF1- R1 Winner vs R5 Winner (Olympiastadion, Germany)
QF2- R2 Winner vs R6 Winner (Luzhniki Stadion, Russia)
QF3- R3 Winner vs R7 Winner (Santiago Bernabeu, Spain)
QF4- R4 Winner vs R8 Winner (Stade Vélodrome, France)

Semi Finals
SF1- QF1 Winner vs QF3 Winner (Wembley, England)
SF2- QF2 Winner vs QF4 Winner (Wembley, England)

3rd place Final
SF1 Loser vs SF2 Loser (Wembley, England) 

Final
SF1 Winner vs SF2 Winner (Wembley, England)

*Edit:* I did a map showing the possible 6 different regions for the groups in the Group Stage.

South Europe- Red
West Europe- Yellow
Central Europe- Grey
Scandanavia- Blue
Eastern Europe- Green
North Europe- Pink


----------



## DaveyCakes

I think it would be better to have each group in just 2 or 3 cities to have more of a tournament feel, rather than just one match and that's it over..


----------



## Almeria

*DIARIO MARCA, ANGEL MARIA VILLAR, PRESIDENTE DE LA REAL FEDERACIÓN ESPAÑOLA DE FUTBOL: "España pujará por la Euro 2020 y 2024*


1º Madrid: Estadio Santiago Bernabeu: 85.000 (remodelado 95.000)
2º Madrid: Estadio de la Peineta 70.000
3º Barcelona: Camp Nou (remodelado a 100.000)
4º Valencia: Nuevo Mestalla: 75.000
5º Bilbao: Nuevo San Mamés: Barria 53.500
6º Sevilla: Olimpico de la Cartuja: 56.520
7º Malaga: Nuevo Estadio 45.000
8º Zaragoza: Nueva Romareda: 40.000

9º Barcelona: Olimpico: 70.000
10º Barcelona: Nou Sarria: 40.000
11º Murcia: 35.000
12º Oviedo: Nuevo Tartiere: 30.000
13º A Coruña: Nuevo Riazor: 35.000

....




*ESPAÑA 2020...El Futbol vuelve a su habitat*


----------



## www.sercan.de

?!?!

English please.


----------



## TEBC

Spain will never learn...


----------



## George_D

Almeria said:


> *DIARIO MARCA, ANGEL MARIA VILLAR, PRESIDENTE DE LA REAL FEDERACIÓN ESPAÑOLA DE FUTBOL: "España pujará por la Euro 2020 y 2024*
> 
> 
> 1º Madrid: Estadio Santiago Bernabeu: 85.000 (remodelado 95.000)
> 2º Madrid: Estadio de la Peineta 70.000
> 3º Barcelona: Camp Nou (remodelado a 100.000)
> 4º Valencia: Nuevo Mestalla: 75.000
> 5º Bilbao: Nuevo San Mamés: Barria 53.500
> 6º Sevilla: Olimpico de la Cartuja: 56.520
> 7º Malaga: Nuevo Estadio 45.000
> 8º Zaragoza: Nueva Romareda: 40.000
> 
> 9º Barcelona: Olimpico: 70.000
> 10º Barcelona: Nou Sarria: 40.000
> 11º Murcia: 35.000
> 12º Oviedo: Nuevo Tartiere: 30.000
> 13º A Coruña: Nuevo Riazor: 35.000
> 
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ESPAÑA 2020...El Futbol vuelve a su habitat*



Spain should bid. The last time they host EURO was in 1964. And a lot of stadiums are already suitable !


----------



## jpgjohnnyg

Does anyone know when any decison has to be made. The Platini pan european host thing seems to have thrown a spanner in the works as no other countries seem interested in making a good old fashioned bid. The deadline has already been put back once but they will have to make a definite decision soon enough as 8 years will pass quickly.


----------



## www.sercan.de

According to german BILD and Stadionwelt

- 13 Cities / stadiums
- 12 "TOP capital cities" / "TOP 12 countries" at the ranking will host it.
- If a country qualfies, they will play all 3 group matches "at home"
- Because Turkey bidded for 2020 etc they plan to give them the Semi-final or and the final at Türk Telekom Arena

http://www.bild.de/sport/fussball/em-2020/warum-steigt-das-finale-in-istanbul-27161782.bild.html

http://www.stadionwelt.de/sw_stadie...st&folder=sites&site=news_detail&news_id=8096


----------



## George_D

jpgjohnnyg said:


> Does anyone know when any decison has to be made. The Platini pan european host thing seems to have thrown a spanner in the works as no other countries seem interested in making a good old fashioned bid. The deadline has already been put back once but they will have to make a definite decision soon enough as 8 years will pass quickly.



Then why not to return to the old system with only 8 teams in final round. It resembles Platini's proposal. After all for an 8 teams tournament will be a lot of countries interesting as 4 stadiums will be enough


----------



## Leedsrule

www.sercan.de said:


> According to german BILD and Stadionwelt
> 
> - 13 Cities / stadiums
> - 12 "TOP capital cities" / "TOP 12 countries" at the ranking will host it.
> - If a country qualfies, they will play all 3 group matches "at home"
> - Because Turkey bidded for 2020 etc they plan to give them the Semi-final or and the final at Türk Telekom Arena
> 
> http://www.bild.de/sport/fussball/em-2020/warum-steigt-das-finale-in-istanbul-27161782.bild.html
> 
> http://www.stadionwelt.de/sw_stadie...st&folder=sites&site=news_detail&news_id=8096


That makes sense but imo it is a ridiculous idea. It would just further cement the advantage the better teams have and mean there would be less shocks getting through to the last rounds.

What if 2 top 12 sides are in the same group? Where do they play eachother?

I think this is the reason that the idea will fail, because its stupid giving so many teams the home advantage in a tournament that is supposed to be neutral and if you dont play it in one teams home country then no-one will watch.

Also, why play the semi's and final at the Turk telekom arena not the Olmpic stadium in Istanbul?


----------



## www.sercan.de

More informations
- 6 groups with 4 teams
- 2 teams are seed (host nations. But first they have to qualfy)
- Istanbul is favourite for both semi finals and Final (so 2 stadiums in Istanbul?)


----------



## PAO13

www.sercan.de said:


> According to german BILD and Stadionwelt
> 
> - 12 "TOP capital cities" / "TOP 12 countries" at the ranking will host it.
> - If a country qualfies, they will play all 3 group matches "at home"





www.sercan.de said:


> More informations
> - 6 groups with 4 teams
> - 2 teams are seed (host nations. But first they have to qualfy)


And how on earth is this supposed to add up?


----------



## www.sercan.de

Only Turkish member of Uefa exco voted against pan-continental Euro 2020.


I think 12 major cities will be selected. IMO UEFA will select them without a bid process

Or like in germany a national bid (Dortmund, Berlin or Munih etc)


----------



## Aka

"13 possible host cities Euro 2020:
Istanbul, London, Paris, Madrid, Rome, Berlin, Athens, Moscow, Kiev, Amsterdam, Brussels, Basel, Zagreb."


----------



## Leedsrule

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/20631963

Fucking terrible idea. Why is platini such a tosser :/


----------



## Aka

It's the only way for Wembley to host a final. :x


----------



## Leedsrule

^^ The only food thing is that wembley host the final. But they haven't thought about it, its not going to work!


----------



## Aka

Platini is also planning to unite Europe during these bitter times. :x


----------



## jpgjohnnyg

Just when I thought the Qatar idea for daftness couldnt be beaten, along came Platini with this sh1t. Basically the top teams will get home advantage to give them extra help as if they need it!


----------



## PaulFCB

The top 13 countries according to something that I head a while ago.

1.Spain
2.Germany
3.Portugal
4.Italy
5.England
6.Netherlands
7.Russia
8.Croatia
9.Greece
10.Switzerland
11.France
12.Belgium
13.Denmark

So the final should be played in Spain as it's nr. 1, Semi's in Germany and Portugal, 3rd place match in Italy.
QF: Spain, Germany, England, Netherlands.

Something like this.

To make it easier, they can cut Russia because it's too far away and it might cause problems and add 14th place country: Sweden.


----------



## AdidasGazelle

What an abomination of an idea hno:


----------



## Leedsrule

PaulFCB said:


> So the final should be played in Spain as it's nr. 1, Semi's in Germany and Portugal, 3rd place match in Italy.
> QF: Spain, Germany, England, Netherlands.
> 
> Something like this.
> 
> To make it easier, they can cut Russia because it's too far away and it might cause problems and add 14th place country: Sweden.


Even those countries are too far apart. You have to play the semi's and final in one city, and one stadium. All other games would basicly be played at one teams home stadium.

They should do it like I said before, with a few adjustments:



Leedsrule said:


> If I was in charge, and those were the groups, this is the stadiums i'd use and where i'd send them:
> 
> Group A South Europe
> 1. Spain 2. Sweden 3. Romania 4. Norway
> 1 vs 2 (Atatürk Olimpiyat Stadium, Turkey)
> 3 vs 4 (Athens Olympic Stadium, Greece)
> 4 vs 1 (San Siro, Italy)
> 2 vs 3 (Türk Telekom Arena, Turkey)
> 1 vs 3 (Stadio Olimpico, Italy)
> 2 vs 4 (Philip II Arena, Macedonia)
> 
> Group B West Europe
> 1. Germany 2. Czech Republic 3. Slovakia 4. Poland
> 1 vs 2 (Santiago Bernabeu, Spain)
> 3 vs 4 (Estádio do Dragão, Portugal)
> 4 vs 1 (Estadio San Mames Barria, Spain)
> 2 vs 3 (Nou Mestalla, Spain)
> 1 vs 3 (Estádio da Luz, Portugal)
> 2 vs 4 (Camp Nou, Spain)
> 
> Group C Central Europe
> 1. Holland 2. Greece 3. Denmark 4. Finland
> 1 vs 2 (Bullen Arena, Austria)
> 3 vs 4 (Stade de Suisse, Switzerland)
> 4 vs 1 (Ernst Happel Stadion, Austria)
> 2 vs 3 (St. Jakob Park, Switzerland)
> 1 vs 3 (Allianz Arena, Germany)
> 2 vs 4 (Hypo Group Arena, Austria)
> 
> Group D Scandinavia (Including Scotland)
> 1. Italy 2. Turkey 3. Russia 4. Bulgaria
> 1 vs 2 (Nya Ullevi Stadion, Sweden)
> 3 vs 4 (Parken Stadion, Denmark)
> 4 vs 1 (Celtic Park, Scotland)
> 2 vs 3 (New National Stadium, Norway)
> 1 vs 3 (Friends Arena, Sweden)
> 2 vs 4 (Hampden Park, Scotland)
> 
> Group E Eastern Europe
> 1. England 2. France 3. Serbia 4. Israel
> 1 vs 2 (New Zenit Stadium, Russia)
> 3 vs 4 (Stadion Narodowy, Poland)
> 4 vs 1 (Stadion NSK Olimpiyskiy, Ukraine)
> 2 vs 3 (National Arena, Romania)
> 1 vs 3 (Luzhniki Stadion, Russia)
> 2 vs 4 (Donbass Arena, Ukraine)
> 
> Group F North Europe
> 1. Croatia 2. Ukraine 3. Switzerland 4. Portugal
> 1 vs 2 (Millenium Stadium, Wales)
> 3 vs 4 (Emirates Stadium, England)
> 4 vs 1 (Amsterdam Arena, Netherlands)
> 2 vs 3 (Stade de France, France)
> 1 vs 3 (Old Trafford, England)
> 2 vs 4 (Signal Iduna Park, Germany)
> 
> 
> 
> Round of 16 (Not entirely sure on the format)
> R1- Winner A vs Best Loser 1 (Friends Arena, Sweden)
> R2- Winner B vs Best Loser 2 (Athens Olympic Stadium, Greece)
> R3- Winner C vs Best Loser 3 (Estádio da Luz, Portugal)
> R4- Winner D vs Best Loser 4 (Allianz Arena, Germany)
> R5- Winner E vs Runner Up A (Aviva Stadium, Ireland)
> R6- Winner F vs Runner Up B (Amsterdam Arena, Netherlands)
> R7- Runner Up C vs Runner Up D (Stadion NSK Olimpiyskiy, Ukraine)
> R8- Runner Up E vs Runner Up F (National Arena, Romania)
> 
> Quater Finals
> QF1- R1 Winner vs R5 Winner (Olympiastadion, Germany)
> QF2- R2 Winner vs R6 Winner (Luzhniki Stadion, Russia)
> QF3- R3 Winner vs R7 Winner (Santiago Bernabeu, Spain)
> QF4- R4 Winner vs R8 Winner (Stade Vélodrome, France)
> 
> Semi Finals
> SF1- QF1 Winner vs QF3 Winner (Wembley, England)
> SF2- QF2 Winner vs QF4 Winner (Wembley, England)
> 
> 3rd place Final
> SF1 Loser vs SF2 Loser (Wembley, England)
> 
> Final
> SF1 Winner vs SF2 Winner (Wembley, England)
> 
> *Edit:* I did a map showing the possible 6 different regions for the groups in the Group Stage.
> 
> South Europe- Red
> West Europe- Yellow
> Central Europe- Grey
> Scandanavia- Blue
> Eastern Europe- Green
> North Europe- Pink


----------



## www.sercan.de

*A EURO for Europe

The UEFA EURO 2020 final tournament will be staged across the continent after today's UEFA Executive Committee decision to hold the event in various major cities throughout Europe.



The UEFA EURO 2020 final tournament will be staged in various major cities throughout Europe, following a decision taken by the UEFA Executive Committee at its meeting in Lausanne on Thursday.

The decision to stage a "EURO for Europe", rather than a tournament in one or two host countries, follows an initial idea revealed by the UEFA President Michel Platini in June. UEFA has consulted its member national associations about the proposal in the intervening period, and has received an extremely positive response, which has prompted Thursday's innovative move. The decision, which was not supported by Şenes Erzik, means that the UEFA National Team Competitions Committee will now take responsibility to review the matter further in order to report to a future UEFA Executive Committee meeting.

Among the other decisions taken, the committee decided that the ownership of football players by third parties should be prohibited as a matter of principle. Consequently, world football's governing body FIFA will be requested to issue relevant worldwide regulations prohibiting third-party ownership of players. UEFA, through its Professional Football Strategy Council (PFSC), would also be ready to implement a regulatory framework to ban third-party ownership arrangements in UEFA competitions, should FIFA not take the appropriate steps. In that case, a transitional period of three to four seasons would apply.

UEFA is continuing to be actively involved in the fight against match-fixing and corruption in football. Accordingly, the Executive Committee expressed its support for the introduction of sporting fraud as a criminal offence in national legislations throughout Europe.

The committee approved the use of additional assistant referees at next summer's UEFA European Under-21 Championship final round in Israel. Two additional assistant referees – who stand on each goal line and watch in particular for penalty-area incidents – are already being deployed in this season's UEFA club competitions, following a decision in July by the International Football Association Board (IFAB) to incorporate additional assistants into the Laws of the Game.

Tbilisi will play host to the 2013 UEFA Futsal Cup finals in April 2013. In addition, the committee approved the name of UEFA's new youth competition for clubs, which will begin from the 2013/14 season – the UEFA Youth League. The trophy will be named after UEFA's honorary president Lennart Johansson.

The committee decided that the 2013/14 UEFA European Women's Under-17 Championship final tournament will be staged in England from 26 November to 8 December 2013, with the qualifying rounds to be played in the summer and autumn of 2013. The final tournament counts as the European qualifying competition for the 2014 FIFA U-17 Women's World Cup, which will take place in Costa Rica in March/April 2014, and not in autumn after the UEFA women's U17 finals, which are normally held in June and/or July.

UEFA has prolonged its arrangement with long-term partner TEAM for the marketing of commercial rights including the UEFA Champions League, UEFA Europa League and UEFA Super Cup initially for three additional seasons and, subject to performance, for an additional three-year term thereafter. As part of the new agreement, TEAM has appointed Michael van Praag, a UEFA Executive Committee member, and David Taylor, the CEO of UEFA Events SA, to its board.

Astana, Kazakhstan, and Vienna, Austria, were chosen by the Executive Committee as the respective venues for the 2014 and 2015 UEFA Ordinary Congresses. The XXXVII Ordinary UEFA Congress will take place in London on 24 May 2013.

The first Executive Committee meeting of 2013 is scheduled for 25 January at the House of European Football in Nyon, Switzerland.

*

http://www.uefa.com/uefa/aboutuefa/...mittee/news/newsid=1904009.html#a+euro+europe


----------



## dinamo_zagreb

Aka said:


> "13 possible host cities Euro 2020:
> Istanbul, London, Paris, Madrid, Rome, Berlin, Athens, Moscow, Kiev, Amsterdam, Brussels, Basel, Zagreb."


I would kick Paris out as it will host previous tournament's final and Kiev as it hosted recent Euro final. :cheers:

If Croatian Football Federation regime stays at their positions, I hope Zagreb won't get it. :banana:


----------



## George_D

answer me this. If Euro final phase will be abolished with every match play in different country then what will be the interest of channels and sponsors? How many days will be needed for semfinal winners that play in Germany and Portugal to gather and be ready for next match in spain? And how may days will be also needed for quarterfinal winners to do the same previously?


----------



## PaulFCB

Spain played its final phases at the Euro 2012 in Ukraine, actually Donetsk while staying in Gdansk, for each game, they made the trip which is a much longer flight than from Berlin to Rome, not to mention Lisbon to Madrid or Berlin to Barcelona.

So the idea with semi-finals and final on the same stadium is selfish considering exactly whats interesting would be taken by a single place. Each way, that can't be Wembley as England clearly don't deserve that, they already had 2 CL finals in 2 years and on the national team side they were completely dominated by other nations.
The plane was invented, a 3 hour flight is nothing, of course, Moscow is a bit too far away, but it's still acceptable, not really Vladivostok.


----------



## www.sercan.de

dinamo_zagreb said:


> I would kick Paris out as it will host previous tournament's final and Kiev as it hosted recent Euro final. :cheers:
> 
> If Croatian Football Federation regime stays at their positions, I hope Zagreb won't get it. :banana:


Good point.

France should'nt be allowed to host a match


----------



## PaulFCB

Yes, skip France and add Sweden then. Didn't think of that.
You can leave Moscow for some Group stage games and eventually as Last 16 game.


----------



## Aka

Distance isn't the issue. You have World Cups being played in more extensive territories. It's the idea...


----------



## andydie

I doubt Russia will get any matches as it has the 2018 World Cup already! I am for the smaller Countries who will never have the chance to host a Euro by themselves to get some games, like BeNeLux, maybe Czech Rep and Slovakia, Croatia or Slovenia and so on.


----------



## PaulFCB

andydie said:


> like BeNeLux, maybe Czech Rep and Slovakia, Croatia or Slovenia and so on.


 Benelux already has Belgium and Holland, so what else? Luxembourg? 
If Croatia can't host, Russia and France won't be accepted because they will host other competitions, it's simple:

14.Sweden
15.Czech Republic
16.Norway.


----------



## Aka

There's one thing that bothers me in all this. You can't choose the venues before the qualifiers end. I mean, we don't even know what countries qualify to the finals. If so, would they start to sell tickets less than seven months before the finals? It doesn't make sense. And it would make less sense if you had countries hosting matches when their National Team didn't qualify.


----------



## dinamo_zagreb

www.sercan.de said:


> Good point.
> 
> France should'nt be allowed to host a match


Forgot to mention Moscow too. Then they will have World Cup final held two years ago, and it doesn't seem fair to other huge European cities that can not host something big, like Budapest or Helsinki or Prague.


Anyway, I am dissappointed with this. They are killing football we know, this huge expanding of competitions (Euro from 16 to 24, now this with hosts, soon expanding UEFA CL) is just disguisting. Only and only money, fu*k sport!


----------



## PaulFCB

Neah, I don't think they will merge CL and EL, the big clubs will have a big word there.


----------



## netgear67

andydie said:


> I doubt Russia will get any matches as it has the 2018 World Cup already! I am for the smaller Countries who will never have the chance to host a Euro by themselves to get some games, like BeNeLux, maybe Czech Rep and Slovakia, Croatia or Slovenia and so on.


Slovenia? Absolutely not. We dont need big stadiums. Also Croatia, but Davor Šuker want to built a 50.000 seats stadium in Zagreb or renovate Maksimir stadium.


----------



## andydie

i agree its ruining the EURO. They should have at least made it a bit more centralised and not all over Europe. Like if u wanna have a more country EURO go for lets say a scandinavian one: Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, maybe Iceland too. Or a Germany/BeneLux one. UK and Ireland something like that.


----------



## PaulFCB

Yes, the could've tried the Nordic Project that had a bid for 2020. 
Plus, the "60 year" celebration is so full of shit, what are you going to do? Celebrate each 20 years?


----------



## alexandru.mircea

Surprised to see people surprised by it. Reading this thread would have informed people about the bidding process and how nothing solid came out of it.


----------



## Turkiiish

Just ridiculous project !!! 
Out Platini !!!


----------



## Kevin_01

Platini :bash:


----------



## Hansadyret

Oh well the decision is made, a bit surprising really. Most games will probably be in western/central Europe since Poland, Ukraine and Russia would have had a tournament recently, this will allso reduce travel distances.

Stadiums: Bernabeu, Camp Nou, Wembley, San Siro, Amsterdam Arena, Stade de France, Allianz Arena, Signal Iduna, Marseille, Da Luz, Friends Arena, The new one in Valencia if it gets finished by 2020

Final in Madrid or London.


----------



## GEwinnen

The semi finals and the final will be in Turkey!!

For each country just one host city, for Germany it will be Berlin.


----------



## dinamo_zagreb

netgear67 said:


> Also Croatia, but Davor Šuker want to built a 50.000 seats stadium in Zagreb or renovate Maksimir stadium.


Šuker is mentally challenged, he's best in reading texts someone else writes for him.

When he speaks without help from someone else, his high is:

Davor Šuker is brand. Davor Šuker is worldwide brand and he can help Croatian football. Davor Šuker is brand. (one TV show)

That's reason why Croatian media call him Brandon. :nuts:


I said before, I don't want Croatia to host it. Country is already near bankrupt, and our FA people are most corrupted people in European football, so you may imagine what money would they take for their own pockets.


----------



## Poul_

Hansadyret said:


> Oh well the decision is made, a bit surprising really. *Most games will probably be in western/central Europe since Poland, Ukraine and Russia would have had a tournament recently*, this will allso reduce travel distances.
> 
> Stadiums: Bernabeu, Camp Nou, Wembley, San Siro, Amsterdam Arena, *Stade de France*, Allianz Arena, Signal Iduna,* Marseille*, Da Luz, Friends Arena, The new one in Valencia if it gets finished by 2020


so what about France , they will host euro in 2016 ??? this is ridiculous


----------



## flierfy

www.sercan.de said:


> France should'nt be allowed to host a match


Not only just France, but most other big countries as well. This Euro is the opportunity to stage big games in smaller countries. Hence, I imagine a Euro played in these stadiums:

Amsterdam Arena, Amsterdam
Heysel Stadium, Brussels
Landsdowne Road, Dublin
Millennium Stadium, Cardiff
Hampden Park, Glasgow
Parken, Copenhagen
Friends Arena, Solna
Estádio da Luz, Lisbon
Spyridon Louis, Athens
Praterstadion, Vienna
Stadion Narodowy, Warsaw
Arena Națională, Bucharest

+

a really big ground for the final four, which could be
Wembley, Brent

These are 13 existing stadiums. Except for the Parken the stadiums have all 50'000+ capacities. I reckon that this could be a record breaking Euro attendance-wise.


----------



## TEBC

jpgjohnnyg said:


> Just when I thought the Qatar idea for daftness couldnt be beaten, along came Platini with this sh1t. Basically the top teams will get home advantage to give them extra help as if they need it!


(2)


----------



## vitaming

Time for Turkey to tell Old Europe to shove it up their arse and work on staging a wonderful OG at the crossroads of East and West.


----------



## Axelferis

good decision!

Stop in a crisis context to dig public finances!


----------



## www.sercan.de

But there wasn't a crisis in Turkey


----------



## Aka

Aka said:


> There's one thing that bothers me in all this. You can't choose the venues before the qualifiers end. I mean, we don't even know what countries qualify to the finals. If so, would they start to sell tickets less than seven months before the finals? It doesn't make sense. And it would make less sense if you had countries hosting matches when their National Team didn't qualify.


I guess this answers my question:

"note: all host countries would not automatically qualify for the euro 2012"

That means they're going to choose the venues despite home teams qualifying or not.


----------



## Hansadyret

flierfy said:


> Not only just France, but most other big countries as well. This Euro is the opportunity to stage big games in smaller countries. Hence, I imagine a Euro played in these stadiums:
> 
> Amsterdam Arena, Amsterdam
> Heysel Stadium, Brussels
> Landsdowne Road, Dublin
> Millennium Stadium, Cardiff
> Hampden Park, Glasgow
> Parken, Copenhagen
> Friends Arena, Solna
> Estádio da Luz, Lisbon
> Spyridon Louis, Athens
> Praterstadion, Vienna
> Stadion Narodowy, Warsaw
> Arena Națională, Bucharest


Wont be that great if half of those countries fail to qualify. Having it in the most famous cities and stadiums will get more fans to travel if you first want people to travel the continent for the tournament.


----------



## Hansadyret

Poul_ said:


> so what about France , they will host euro in 2016 ??? this is ridiculous


But they are in western Europe wich will mean shorter distances and easier travel for fans. Just hop in the Eurostar when going from Paris to London etc.


----------



## flierfy

Hansadyret said:


> Wont be that great if half of those countries fail to qualify. Having it in the most famous cities and stadiums will get more fans to travel if you first want people to travel the continent for the tournament.


Don't worry, with 24 spots on offer almost all of these nation will qualify.


----------



## Ecological

PaulFCB said:


> Spain played its final phases at the Euro 2012 in Ukraine, actually Donetsk while staying in Gdansk, for each game, they made the trip which is a much longer flight than from Berlin to Rome, not to mention Lisbon to Madrid or Berlin to Barcelona.
> 
> So the idea with semi-finals and final on the same stadium is selfish considering exactly whats interesting would be taken by a single place. Each way, that can't be Wembley as England clearly don't deserve that, they already had 2 CL finals in 2 years and on the national team side they were completely dominated by other nations.
> The plane was invented, a 3 hour flight is nothing, of course, Moscow is a bit too far away, but it's still acceptable, not really Vladivostok.


What a crock of shit!! :nuts:


----------



## Ecological

My guess is Wembley is guranteed the final due to the revenue Britain produces for such events. The only country that could compete with them is Germany but no stadium matches the size of Wembley. 

I suspect the draw schedule will also change.

Dont forget France hosted the 2007 world cup and Britain hosted games then so it can be done.


----------



## Hansadyret

Ecological said:


> My guess is Wembley is guranteed the final due to the revenue Britain produces for such events. The only country that could compete with them is Germany but no stadium matches the size of Wembley.


How so? would not the ticket prices be just as big in Madrid? My bet is on Bernabeu. Last international final in 1982 and Real Madrid is planning an expansion.


----------



## Hansadyret

Ecological said:


> Dont forget France hosted the 2007 world cup and Britain hosted games then so it can be done.


What? Rugby?


----------



## Poul_

Hansadyret said:


> What? Rugby?


France should be out of competition because of euro 2016 , but Platini is french so final match will be in Stade de France


----------



## Laurence2011

is this just a one off thing? please tell me it is


----------



## PaulFCB

Ecological said:


> My guess is Wembley is guranteed the final due


 Yeah, just like it was guaranteed to host the final of the 2018 World Cup :nuts:.



> How so? would not the ticket prices be just as big in Madrid? My bet is on Bernabeu. Last international final in 1982 and Real Madrid is planning an expansion.


 It's all imagination till they announce the actual rules, till we don't know something clear, Wembley might not even host a freaking group stage match, nobody clearly said England nor other british countries should even host something. It's just my bet that they will go for the Coefficient plan, which is healthy considering everybody should be given equal rights as long as the tournament is hosted by the continent itself, and of course, everybody should get it's fair part of the share based on results. As long as Spain has dominated and even humiliated its rivals like Italy, they aren't just worth the final, but also a 2nd venue. It's normal for countries like Romania or Turkey not to get anything at the same time, because they proved rather failures recently, while for Euro 2024, things seem open for countries like these to bid, maybe alone or along with a neighbor or two.
The only problem with this shit, is that a country like Spain will be totally capable of hosting this thing alone, having a small part of a tournament is not much, if they add Portugal, there's no problem.


----------



## Fizmo1337

What an idiot. Why cant UEFA EVER make a good decision?? The atmosphere of having the euro's in 1 or 2 countries is gone now. The fans will all be spread over Europe instead of seeing all the fans in 1 or 2 countries enjoying the carnaval footblal atmosphere. Now the games will be played in the same footbal stadiums that you see already in the CL. The whole euro atmosphere will be gone . F*cking uefa screw always everything. Just because that idiot platini wanted to be remembered for doing a change. LESSON: DONT CHANGE A SUCCESFUL FORMAT IDIOT

That guy should be shot for destroying football in every possible way. No joke. 

The funny thing is that guy is complaining about every money team like chelsea, city or PSG in European football yet all his decisions are only to earn more money for uefa themselves aswell (expansion CL, expansion euro's, spreading out euro's over Europe). That guy is an asshole first class. No suprise he is french.


----------



## PaulFCB

Europe is in crisis, I'm pretty sure that if there was a real good bid, like Spain, things would've been different.
Also, if Spain wouldn't want to host just because they would want a WC or Olympic Games and were afraid that they get the Euro, they won't be taken seriously in other bids, it's their fault, not Platini's because they didn't take the responsibility.
At the same time, he gave all the countries months to think about a bid, this decision wasn't taken without giving someone a chance to host, it was given because it was all UEFA could do, propose a "UEFA" wide Euro, they can't just say *Spain: I order you to host* or Nordic countries, remember when you wanted 08? Now it's time to do that shit......
It's up to each Federation to take such decisions, UEFA can't tell Romania or Belgium to host and on the other side, you can't really just say "host as good as you can, no more rules".

So what I'm saying is that maybe there wasn't another way, but I totally against this things, not to mention the cretin format of playing at home if you are seeded, till the QF but these are probably yet to be discussed and approved, the problem is that the expansion to 24 doesn't help considering that it's a mixed format between 16 and 32 that didn't really look good at the WC, though over there you would have 24 from all across the world = better competition, despite a prank group stage format with up to 3 teams Q to the Last 16. Despite all this, I doubt this is the problem, the problem is what is happening in Europe right now.


----------



## Fizmo1337

PaulFCB said:


> Europe is in crisis, I'm pretty sure that if there was a real good bid, like Spain, things would've been different.
> Also, if Spain wouldn't want to host just because they would want a WC or Olympic Games and were afraid that they get the Euro, they won't be taken seriously in other bids, it's their fault, not Platini's because they didn't take the responsibility.
> At the same time, he gave all the countries months to think about a bid, this decision wasn't taken without giving someone a chance to host, it was given because it was all UEFA could do, propose a "UEFA" wide Euro, they can't just say *Spain: I order you to host* or Nordic countries, remember when you wanted 08? Now it's time to do that shit......
> It's up to each Federation to take such decisions, UEFA can't tell Romania or Belgium to host and on the other side, you can't really just say "host as good as you can, no more rules".


Dude, its for 2020. By then the crisis will already be over. And besides, if the economic crisis is a problem just stage it for 1 time in a country like england or germany (or joint scandinavian bid). I'm sure 1 or 2 of those would want to host it if needed. Turkey can do it aswell. That's not even an argument.


----------



## PaulFCB

Well then, tell Germany to bid, oh wait, they refused to do it.
Why didn't England or the Nordic countries bid? Nobody stopped them from the outside.
And tell the turkich government that you like Euro more than the Olympics, maybe that way they would choose to push for Euro more than Istanbul 2020...
2020 or not, unless you invented time travel in a Belgian laboratory, whoever would host in 2020 won't be able to seriously use money from 2023 or 2034 for this. Also, don't be so sure that in 2020 we will sink into money and Europe will be clean off and Greece thriving and have $3000 salaries as they think they are worth.


----------



## gladiatori

**** the UEFA, FIFA and Bulgarian football union!


----------



## parcdesprinces

Fizmo1337 said:


> That guy should be shot [...] No joke.
> 
> That guy is an asshole first class. *No suprise he is french.*


No comment! hno:

PS: By the way, maybe you haven't noticed, but thanks to some "first class assholes that should be shot", you can today enjoy the UEFA Euro, the UEFA Champion Clubs' Cup (aka the CL), the FIFA WC, the Modern Olympics, etc, etc, etc, because they all have been invented by Frenchmen. 
So maybe you could show a little bit more respect towards the people and the Nation who gave to the world all these competitions (and much more)! :colbert:

Non mais !


----------



## Fizmo1337

PaulFCB said:


> Well then, tell Germany to bid, oh wait, they refused to do it.
> Why didn't England or the Nordic countries bid? Nobody stopped them from the outside.
> And tell the turkich government that you like Euro more than the Olympics, maybe that way they would choose to push for Euro more than Istanbul 2020...
> 2020 or not, unless you invented time travel in a Belgian laboratory, whoever would host in 2020 won't be able to seriously use money from 2023 or 2034 for this. Also, don't be so sure that in 2020 we will sink into money and Europe will be clean off and Greece thriving and have $3000 salaries as they think they are worth.


This has nothing to do with having not enough candidates to host it. If REALLY needed, they certainly would find enough candidates. Several joint-bids like croatia with a neighbouring country, turkey (aslong as they dont have the olympics they SHOULD be allowed to bid), azerbeidzjan/georgia was interested and I'm sure if they really wanted they could convince a few big nations for a 1 time bid (or scotland/wales, they didn't bid but were interested, can be convinced if needed imo).

This is just platini pushing through one of this many crazy plans to put his mark on it so he won't be 'forgotten' but actually 'remembered' for making some (stupid) changes.


----------



## flierfy

Fizmo1337 said:


> What an idiot. Why cant UEFA EVER make a good decision?? The atmosphere of having the euro's in 1 or 2 countries is gone now. The fans will all be spread over Europe instead of seeing all the fans in 1 or 2 countries enjoying the carnaval footblal atmosphere. Now the games will be played in the same footbal stadiums that you see already in the CL. The whole euro atmosphere will be gone .


This is not true. Just a small fraction of football supporters actually travel to the games. The vast majority of fans just watch the games on television. And the atmosphere there will be exactly the same as always.


----------



## koolio

Brilliant decision. This will make the tournament much more interesting to the global TV audience. I do feel sorry for Turkey though. Hopefully Istanbul gets the Olympics.


----------



## ervin1703

Platini has done it again he has thought of everything possible so that Turkey is not awarded the EURO's during his tenure as UEFA president. First it was France 2016 for the 3rd time, then this idiotic idea which is no more than an extension of the European qualifying tournament for an anniversary (60th) that is not normally celebrated. Some say that Istanbul's Olympic bid is a problem however even Platini knows that Tokyo will win that one and it is a non issue. Whatever hopefully Turkey does not accept the measly consolation prize of hosting a couple of games in EURO 2020 and thus jepordising its chances for a single bid for EURO 2024. But I am just really disappointed, when Turkey is concerned the goal posts constantly seemed to be moved. Whatever maybe one day UEFA will one day itself embrace the no to racism respect campaign it seems to be advocating....


----------



## George_D

Why Platini is so negative towards Turkey as a host?


----------



## Almeria

hno:*Euro Platini 2020 Frankenstein Urocup*. 

What a mess has invented this franchute. :applause:

A nonsense for supporters, countries aspiring to an ecomic con investment, all things* a decaffeinated nations Champions league *an the final, the best macht in the *Stade de France* (courtesy of Platini that euro 2016 that was for Turkey), and the opening ceremony in *Wembley* to please to Inglands. 

Meanwhile, countries like Spain with sufficient capacity to organize a euro (and world cup) will have conflicts by the grievances of choosing one city: Madrid (Bernabeu-Peineta) Barcelona-Valencia Sevilla Bilbao.. Manchester-Wembley, Munich-Berlin. Milan-Roma…

*Platini must learn Spanish because it does more than deliver trophies to the Spaniards* :lol:

In definitive a wisecrack horryble


----------



## Aka

parcdesprinces said:


> PS: By the way, maybe you haven't noticed, but thanks to some "first class assholes that should be shot", you can today enjoy the UEFA Euro, the UEFA Champion Clubs' Cup (aka the CL), the FIFA WC, the Modern Olympics, etc, etc, etc, because they all have been invented by Frenchmen.


Well, football was invented by the English... :x























































Sorry.


----------



## ervin1703

@ George_D, I am attaching a a quote from the BBC website by a user named molby61 which I think sums up the lengths Platini and UEFA have gone to make sure that EURO 2020 is not hosted by Turkey:

"515. molby61 
1 HOUR AGO
Feel sorry 4 Turkey. Beaten by 1 vote (by France for EURO 2016), they tender 4 2020. UEFA fears "only" Turkey want it, first extend the deadline date 4 applications, then openly invite multi-country applications.
However, even those tactics fail & Turkey remains the front runner.
So they use the excuse that if (a big IF) Turkey get the 2020 Olympics they need a back up plan. And sadly this is it!" meaning the EURO for Europe.

I don't know why Platini doesn't want Turkey to host Euro maybe he has this stupid EU notion that Turkey is not 'European' or 'Christian' enough to host Euro's maybe he just dislikes Turkey I don't know but everyday he seems to become more like Sarkozy. Well I don't know.

Even if UEFA didn't give Euro to Turkey it should have been hosted by the Celtic nations. They have good infrastructure, football heritage and interest in the sport. Even the inexperianced Georgia and the fast developing Azerbaijan as hosts nations would have been better.

This EURO will just be soul less...


----------



## carnifex2005

Smart idea spreading out the cost of the tourney. Also, no more crappy auto-qualifiers since they are hosting. Win/win. Now if they can only change their minds on increasing the field to 24 teams. That's going to be some crappy football if that's the case.


----------



## TEBC

Boring!! They ruined Euro!


----------



## www.sercan.de

George_D said:


> Why Platini is so negative towards Turkey as a host?


IMo because of the turkish football scandal.
Before 2011 everything was fine. TFF was one of the biggest supporters and they helped him to win the election


----------



## George_D

An UEFA official stated clearly that this will happen only for 2020 competition. I think they are too cynical


----------



## vitaming

www.sercan.de said:


> IMo because of the turkish football scandal.
> Before 2011 everything was fine. TFF was one of the biggest supporters and they helped him to win the election


Except he presided over Turkey being robbed of 2016.


----------



## matthemod

A quick summary of the past few pages of this thread seem to indicate a few recurring factors:

People posting from small European Countries who could never conceivably host the Cup on their own are supportive.
People posting from Countries outside Europe are also supportive.
People from the U.K. France, Spain, Germany and especially Turkey hate it!


----------



## George_D

matthemod said:


> A quick summary of the past few pages of this thread seem to indicate a few recurring factors:
> 
> People posting from small European Countries who could never conceivably host the Cup on their own are supportive.
> it!



I am from Greece, but i also hate it.


----------



## jpgjohnnyg

matthemod said:


> A quick summary of the past few pages of this thread seem to indicate a few recurring factors:
> 
> People posting from small European Countries who could never conceivably host the Cup on their own are supportive.
> People posting from Countries outside Europe are also supportive.
> People from the U.K. France, Spain, Germany and especially Turkey hate it!


I think it sucks too and would have liked a celtic euro if Turkey didnt get it.
For all the Platini fan boys just remember this guy is the main reason technology has taken so long to come into football and yet it works so very well in so many other sports. I know the French dig earlier was unfair but when it comes to football they have form just think of the World cup 2010, how the team qualified and then how they behaved when they got there - enough said!


----------



## Turkiiish

The semi finals and the final will be in Turkey ''TÜRK TELEKOM ARENA'' !!


----------



## carnifex2005

Turkiiish said:


> The semi finals and the final will be in Turkey ''TÜRK TELEKOM ARENA'' !!


Lol! No, it isn't. It's going to Wembley for the final and semis.


----------



## Laurence2011

but what about camp nou?


----------



## Rev Stickleback

flierfy said:


> This is not true. Just a small fraction of football supporters actually travel to the games.


That's incorrect. You are confusing official allocations with the number who travel.

Absolutely thousands at the games are foreign fans. Loads of fans go to games that their team aren't playing in. I was out in Ukraine in the summer, and nearly all the England fans out there for the week I was there said they were going to either Portugal v Denmark (in Lviv) or Germany v Holland (in Kharkhiv) as well and the England games.

For Sweden v England in Kiev, at least 20,000 people from outside Ukraine were at the match. Sweden had 15,000 out there.

I went to Germany in 2006 as well, and it was a real melting pot of thousands upon thousands of fans from many countries all mixing together like a football carnival. You also had the pride of the host nations in hosting, really help make the tournaments special. Spread the games around the continent and you lose all that.


The only people in favour of this seem to be people who never go to tournaments anyway, for whom it doesn't make a blind bit of difference.


----------



## VisUnitaFortior

I would rather have seen a group of countries hosting a tournament (e.g. Scandinavia, Scotland/Wales/Ireland, etc) over this scenario but I do wonder how UEFA will manage all future 24 team Euros. If this generates more money then it wil become a permanent way of doing it.


----------



## larsul

WHat a joke.. they are going to destroy the tournament!


----------



## Andre_idol

Let the Hunger Games begin to which countries get it, what they get and where they have it...

At a first look it looks like a silly idea. I´ll wait to see how UEFA will do this but I´m very cynical towards it. I think they are taking the special feeling out of the tournament. Sure small countries can´t handle the costs of hosting an Euro (well, I´m in one of them) but if that´s the case just make it on the same ones again.
It just seems like a nightmare how they will make it "fair" for the home/away matches of a NT, how many days you will have to rest between matches (see group stage of the current model) and how supporters will react on probably having to travel to 4/5/6/10?! countries if they wanna follow their NT from the beginning to the finals. 
It looks like we will be approaching a NT Champions League...


----------



## Aka

Andre_idol said:


> Sure small countries can´t handle the costs of hosting an Euro (well, I´m in one of them)


Actually...


----------



## MS20

My only concern about this proposal is the lack of stadium infrastructure booms taking place on a regular basis. 

On the other hand, outside of Italy, most major European countries have strong infrastructure already, or are in the process of revamping (Turkey and Russia), so maybe its not really an issue. 

The positive news might be that we have far fewer stadiums being built way too big for the host clubs, with Portugal being an extreme example of that. 

Whether its a one off or not, I dont mind the proposal. I thought it was crazy at first, but I'm coming around to it.


----------



## parcdesprinces

^^ Anyway, hosting the UEFA Euro is not only about "stadium infrastructure" you know, faaaar from that actually  !



----------



BTW & hopefully, some of the Turkish SSC-forumers (aka the most educated ones.. I guess :|) have understood since a while that the _France 2016 bid_ was way superior (_Platikozy_ or not)! End of story, so move on, my dear other Turk forumers !


----------



## www.sercan.de

> Final Four in Istanbul (Turkey) with the first semifinal to be played at Şükrü Saracoğlu and the second semifinal to be played at Ali Sami Yen.* Final to be played at Atatürk Olympiyat!*


Nooo. They should use just football stadiums.
But they are too small?!?!

Ali Sami Yen 52,652
Sükrü Saracoglu 50,509
Inönü 42,000

All are new and just football stadiums.


----------



## Fabri88

www.sercan.de said:


> Nooo. They should use just football stadiums.
> But they are too small?!?!
> 
> Ali Sami Yen 52,652
> Sükrü Saracoglu 50,509
> Inönü 42,000
> 
> All are new and just football stadiums.


Yes but for a final you need a real high-capacity stadium!

You can't play for example a quarterfinal in Barcelona with an attendance of 96.000 and then play the final in front of only 52.000!

The "problem" of semifinals at Sukru Saracoglu and Ali Sami Yen could be coped with by raising ticket prices. Then you round up the income with the final held in a bigger stadium (and Atatürk Olympiyat I think it provides the right capacity for a final).


----------



## pramzan

Fabri88 said:


> Yes but for a final you need a real high-capacity stadium!
> 
> You can't play for example a quarterfinal in Barcelona with an attendance of 96.000 and then play the final in front of only 52.000!
> 
> The "problem" of semifinals at Sukru Saracoglu and Ali Sami Yen could be coped with by raising ticket prices. Then you round up the income with the final held in a bigger stadium (and Atatürk Olympiyat I think it provides the right capacity for a final).


It's irrelevant anyway, as Platini has said today that no games will be held in Asia.


----------



## Fabri88

pramzan said:


> It's irrelevant anyway, as Platini has said today that no games will be held in Asia.


So the only stadium exluded is Fenerbahçe's one!


----------



## www.sercan.de

I still think taht london is the best option for the Final 4.
Istanbul is just to kiss up.
And IMO Turkey prefers to host the 2024 Euro. Therefore if they get the Finals, they cannot bid for the 2024 Euro.


----------



## George_D

You are all worst than Platini. You are able to tell us that every match of euro should be hosted in 2 stadiums


----------



## Fabri88

www.sercan.de said:


> I still think taht london is the best option for the Final 4.
> Istanbul is just to kiss up.
> And IMO Turkey prefers to host the 2024 Euro. Therefore if they get the Finals, they cannot bid for the 2024 Euro.


Are you/we sure that it will only be for the 2020 edition? I hope it will be for every edition.


----------



## Fabri88

George_D said:


> You are all worst than Platini. You are able to tell us that every match of euro should be hosted in 2 stadiums


I'm not saying so.

Then, London is the only city in Europe that could host a tournament on its own!


----------



## www.sercan.de

Fabri88 said:


> Are you/we sure that it will only be for the 2020 edition? I hope it will be for every edition.


_Mr Infantino said that a number of reflections had led to the Executive Committee's decision. "Let me say that it is a *decision only about 2020*," he emphasised. "2020 is the 60th anniversary of the European Football Championship. Obviously the fact that the EURO [final round] will feature 24 teams instead of 16 puts an additional burden on countries to host such an event. It becomes much more difficult for many countries – the requirements are becoming bigger and bigger._
http://www.uefa.com/uefa/aboutuefa/organisation/executivecommittee/news/newsid=1904146.html


----------



## vitaming

pramzan said:


> It's irrelevant anyway, as Platini has said today that no games will be held in Asia.


What century is this dinosaur from?hno:


----------



## kivo

Fabri88 said:


> And the sixth group? Where did you leave it behind?


Apologies - I had in my mind that there were 20 teams, not 24.

Think there will be 19 stadiums

5 countries with 2 stadiums
9 countries with 1 stadium

5 groups of 4, with 3 stadiums per group

*GROUP A*
SPAIN
Camp Nou
Santiago Bernabéu

PORTUGAL
Estadio de Luz

*GROUP B*
ENGLAND
Wembley
Old Trafford

WALES
Millennium Stadium

*GROUP C*
FRANCE
Stade de France
Stade Velodrome

ITALY
San Siro

*GROUP D*
GERMANY
Olympiastadion
Allianz Arena

POLAND
Stadion Narodowy

*GROUP E*
TURKEY
Ataturk

GREECE
Olympic Stadium

ROMANIA
Bucharest Stadium

*GROUP F*
RUSSIA
Zenit Stadium
Luzhniki

UKRAINE
Olympiyskiy


----------



## Rev Stickleback

vitaming said:


> What century is this dinosaur from?hno:


I would guess it was a reference to ruling out playing games in Japan, China etc, for more money, rather than saying no games in Turkey.


----------



## Fabri88

Sercan, what about semifinal to be played in Izmir and Ankara and final in Istanbul? Obviously Izmir and Ankara would have to build up stadiums with >70.000 seats. On the other hand Ankara and Izmir will be able to host whatever UCL or UEL final after 2020 and other football events.

Antalya also could be a good alternative, especially because they already have a developed and busy airport, then tour operators could match the Euro Final Four with a seaside holiday.


----------



## www.sercan.de

Honestly turks do not want to built big stadiums just because of "prestige".

Currently 24 new stadiums are u/c or proposed in Turkey and most of them are between 25,000-33,000.

There are plans for new stadiums in Izmir and Ankara. But the first aim is to built smaller ones.

Izmir:
New stadium for Karsiyaka SK (Northern club of the city) : 25,900 (approved)
New stadium for Göztepe SK (Southern club of the city) : 25,000 (plans/ideas)

Last phase is a new stadium for 40,000-45,000 for Altay SK aka main stadium of the city (Cup Final, national team or possible EURO etc)


Ankara:
Gençlerbirligi SK plans to built a new 20,000 stadium.
New 45,000 is planned for the current site.


As far as i understand the UEFA prefers just one city for the Final Four matches.

London is actually the best option. 
60 years of EURO -> "love...peace...united....friendship...everything is ok" atmosphere
There shoulnd't be a problem to use the Rugby stadium in Twickenham


----------



## Fabri88

In this post seems that you dislike the idea to go for the second-best (as Madonna used to sing in 1989 hit "Express Yourself")

If the Europewide Euro will be only in 2020 (so that Turkey can push to host 2024's edition) so I agree that London is the best choice! 

But I think that Twickenham would be unavailable.

A final four in London would turn the green light on about the New White Hart Lane (56.250) in order to host one of the two semifinals. The other one obviously will be played at Ashburton Grove (Emirates Stadium - 60.355) finishing up at Wembley (90.000).


----------



## Gface

*TÜRK TELEKOM ARENA*


----------



## www.sercan.de

If Istanbul hosts the Final four in 2020 than Turkey will not get the EURO 2024 .
We do not have the french connection 


Honestly i would prefer Twickenham. Its big and IMO the final four atmoshere will attrac more fans.


----------



## Fabri88

www.sercan.de said:


> If Istanbul hosts the Final four in 2020 than Turkey will not get the EURO 2024 .
> We do not have the french connection
> 
> 
> Honestly i would prefer Twickenham. Its big and IMO the final four atmoshere will attrac more fans.


Me too! But it all depends if the RFU agree to host a football match on their ground!

OT: When's the kick-off of next Sunday's intercontinental derby? 19:00 UTC+2?


----------



## www.sercan.de

The only problem at Twickenham could be the distance at football matches

Goal stands: ~22,5m and the other two ~13,5m











Kick-off is at 20:00 local time. So in Italy / Germany 19:00


----------



## Hansadyret

Why on earth would anybody want to hold euro 2020 games at twickenham with hundreds of real football stadiums around europe.:nuts:


----------



## RobH

Again, why? And how do you propose figuring that one out?

Czech Republic, Denmark and Greece have all reached finals people probably wouldn't have predicted they'd reach in the last two decades.

UEFA needs to look at this objectively, not try to predict the likely finals six years out then work backwards from there.


----------



## Almeria

RobH said:


> Again, why? And how do you propose figuring that one out?
> 
> Czech Republic, Denmark and Greece have all reached finals people probably wouldn't have predicted they'd reach in the last two decades.
> 
> UEFA needs to look at this objectively, not try to predict the likely finals six years out then work backwards from there.


There are things that never changes, England has no chance of reaching a few semi-finals. It has only won a World Cup and with an illegal goal. So wembley is ideal for the final. Her Majesty the Queen will deliver the trophy and you can reassemble the fair of olympic park 2012 to fanzone.


----------



## Rev Stickleback

Almeria said:


> There are things that never changes, England has no chance of reaching a few semi-finals.


last managed it in 1996.

Got there by actually winning a penalty shoot-out in the QFs. Can't remember who against, but it must have been a right bunch of mugs to lose to us on pens.


----------



## RobH

Remind me how well Spain were doing in 2002, six years before they reached the 2008 final?

Again, it'd be stupid to choose a finals stadium based upon weak predictions about who might or might not do well.


----------



## Kaufmann

delate


----------



## Kaufmann

*UEFA EURO 2020*
- considering already existing stadia capable of more than 30.000
- considering the most important stadiums with the best atmosphere and cities with good infrastructure in euro metropolis 

would be:

Barcelona (Spain) - Camp Nou - 96.636
Dortmund (Germany) - Signal Iduna Park - 65.614
Amsterdam (Netherlands) - Amsterdam Arena - 52.342
Paris (France) - Stade de France- 80.218
Warszawa (Poland) - National Stadium - 58.145
Lisbon (Portugal) - Da Luz - 65.647
Athen (Greece) - Olympic Stadium - 71.030
Stockholm (Sweden) - Friends Arena - 51.100
Istanbul (Turkey) -Türk Telekom Arena - 52.630
Copenhagen (Denmark) - Parken - 38.065
Bucharest (Romania) - Arena Națională - 55.600


Group A: Stockholm and Copenhagen
Group B: Dortmund and Amsterdam
Group C: Warszawa and Bucharest
Group D: London and Paris
Group E: Athen and Istanbul
Group F: Barcelona and Lisabon

• Round of 16 played in: Athen, Basel, Copenhagen, Istanbul, Stockholm, Amsterdam, Warszawa and Bucharest
• Quarterfinals played in: Paris, Dortmund, Warszawa and Barcelona
• 1st Semifinal: London (England) - Olympic Stadium - 80.000 
• 2nd Semifinal: London (England) - Ashburton Grove (Emirates Stadium) - 60.361
• FINAL: London (England) - Wembley - 90.000


----------



## Fabri88

Please...Paris already hosts 2016 matches. France should be cut off from 2020 venues!

France, and Russia too. Then we have the Turkish question.

PS: Why either RO16 and QF played in Warsaw? That's the only city hosting both!


----------



## Almeria

RobH said:


> Remind me how well Spain were doing in 2002, six years before they reached the 2008 final?
> 
> Again, it'd be stupid to choose a finals stadium based upon weak predictions about who might or might not do well.


Spain in 2002 a referee called the Gandur us blatantly stole the match against Korea. Before, Spain had won a *euro in 1964*, a gold Olympics and a sub-championsihp in the Euro´84. After 1966 the best post of England has been an 8º in Italy 90. England win something when is host and with the help of the referees. For this reason and to be a second-class team England the ideal venue for final 2020 should be *Wembley* In addition, Wembley is an expensive white elephant unused and need these events to give international meaning. Besides its appearance is becoming more obsolete and soon pass fashion, despite that arc copied the old San Mames of Bilbao and the original project of Maracanã designed by the great *architect Oscar Niemeyer*. 

France is host of the Euro 2016 for that reason the best representative must be the *Parc des Princes *and give more prominence to stadiums like Turkey, Bruseslas and stadiums historical where Finals of the euro have played.


----------



## GEwinnen

Kaufmann said:


> *UEFA EURO 2020*
> 
> Barcelona
> Dortmund
> Amsterdam
> Paris
> Warszawa
> Lisbon
> Athen
> Stockholm
> Istanbul
> Copenhagen
> Bucharest


One city doesn't fit in your list of european major cities.................


----------



## Fabri88

I think that if 2020 will be played all around Europe then there will be no reson to come back hosting it in a single or two countries!

So, London for 2020 edition and then? Then we have to find which are the real poles of attraction of European football.

And these are, at the moment (from West to East):

• Lisbon: Da Luz and Alvalade
• Dublin: Lansdowne Road and Croke Park
• Madrid: Santiago Bernabeu and Vicente Calderon (and the new Olympic Stadium if Madrid will be chosen for 2020 Summer Olympics)
• Manchester: Old Trafford and City of Manchester
• Barcelona: Camp Nou and Montjuic (this one to be refurbished and covered)
• Paris: Stade de France and Parc des Princes
• Ruhrgebiet: Westfalenstadion and Arena AufSchalke
• Istanbul: Atatürk Olimpyiat, Ali Sami Yen and Sükrü Saraçoglu

The nations are: England, Portugal, Eire, Spain, France, Germany and Turkey.

The only two that are likely not to proceed until further stages of the tournament are Eire and Turkey!

Portugal already reached final in 2004 and semifinals in 2000 and 2012 (and in 2006 at the FWC...then let's forget 1966's one 'cause it's too long ago)! Turkey also reached semifinals in 2008 and at the 2002 FWC!


----------



## RobH

Almeria said:


> Spain in 2002 a referee called the Gandur us blatantly stole the match against Korea. Before, Spain had won a *euro in 1964*, a gold Olympics and a sub-championsihp in the Euro´84. After 1966 the best post of England has been an 8º in Italy 90. England win something when is host and with the help of the referees. For this reason and to be a second-class team England the ideal venue for final 2020 should be *Wembley* In addition, Wembley is an expensive white elephant unused and need these events to give international meaning. Besides its appearance is becoming more obsolete and soon pass fashion, despite that arc copied the old San Mames of Bilbao and the original project of Maracanã designed by the great *architect Oscar Niemeyer*.


I'll laugh my head off when Madrid 2020 does an Annecy.

Your very thinly veiled jealousy isn't hard to detect.


----------



## Fabri88

Madrid already has a good airport and 12 Metro lines serving the city!

And being a European capital and metropolis doesn't lack in hotels and other accomodation facilities.

What's wrong with Madrid? I think that with Santiago Bernabeu and Vicente Calderon Madrid would be a great venue for a Final Four!


----------



## Almeria

Fabri88 said:


> Madrid already has a good airport and 12 Metro lines serving the city!
> 
> And being a European capital and metropolis doesn't lack in hotels and other accomodation facilities.
> 
> What's wrong with Madrid? I think that with Santiago Bernabeu and Vicente Calderon Madrid would be a great venue for a Final Four!



Platini hates the Spanish football, not hold us, the same as Robh :lol:

You only Look at the face of disgust that puts when delivery any of UEFA trophies any Spanish team :rant:

So we cannot expect to include none of the large stadiums of Spain in 1/4 1/2 and Final. 
Barcelona-Madrid?It is almost certain that Barcelona shall decide to build a new Stadium next to the Cam Nou. 

Florentino Perez plans make the Bernabeu in a big shoping-center... that if Mourinho does not kill it before an attack to the heart...


----------



## Kaufmann

GEwinnen said:


> One city doesn't fit in your list of european major cities.................


So what?!  but there is one of the best stadium in Germany and its not a UEFA championship of all capitals, or is that wrong?! Dortmund is placed in the Rhein-Ruhr region with more than 12million people with one of the best infrastructure and 3 Airports.


----------



## Bogus Law

Fabri88 said:


> Please...Paris already hosts 2016 matches. France should be cut off from 2020 venues!
> 
> France, and Russia too. Then we have the Turkish question.
> 
> PS: *Why either RO16 and QF played in Warsaw? That's the only city hosting both!*


Oh, that's very simple: the guy who has posted that is Polish. Note that he's also included Dortmund (where he's currently living, probably)

No surprise actually. Whoever's in favour of multinational euro 2020 they all hope for the same: let my country (city) be on the hosts list.


----------



## Jennette

I find it a bit comical that Platini went to all this trouble just to not give the tournament to Turkey(after illegaly getting euro2016 for France).


----------



## carlspannoosh

Maybe it should be in Wales, Scotland and Ireland :cheers: 

Scotland - Ibrox, Murrayfield, Hamden Park, Celtic Park
Ireland - Croke Park and Aviva Stadium
Wales - Millennium Stadium


----------



## Werkself

Kaufmann said:


> So what?!  but there is one of the best stadium in Germany and its not a UEFA championship of all capitals, *or is that wrong?! *


Yes, wrong. Signaliduna is a bad stadium which needs big renovation or needs to be teared down. We have at least 10 stadiums in germany with a better sightlines and higher standards. Its not even big in seated mode.

sorry. hno:


----------



## MoreOrLess

Fabri88 said:


> *Please...Paris already hosts 2016 matches. France should be cut off from 2020 venues*!
> 
> France, and Russia too. Then we have the Turkish question.
> 
> PS: Why either RO16 and QF played in Warsaw? That's the only city hosting both!


I'm pretty sure this is the reason Platini's has pushed though this decision, a chance for the french to host some more matches.

I'm supprized he hasnt proposed this being built in Paris to stage every final...


----------



## Kaufmann

Werkself said:


> Yes, wrong. Signaliduna is a bad stadium which needs big renovation or needs to be teared down. We have at least 10 stadiums in germany with a better sightlines and higher standards. Its not even big in seated mode.
> 
> sorry. hno:


Are you kidding me? We habe at least 10 stadiums in germany (Bundesliga) with a better sightlines or a higher standart?! What is your definiton of a high standart?! Only the 5 Stars stadiums?! What is with tradition and atmosphere?! The Westfalenstadium it is one of the most famous football stadiums in Europe and was elected best football stadium by The Times for its renowned atmosphere.

You said Germany have 10 better stadiums than Dortmund, but which one?!

Munich?! OK
Schalke?! OK
Stuttgart?! maybe OK
Hamburg?! maybe OK


Mönchengladbach?!
Düsseldorf?!
Cologne?!
Frankfurt?!
Berlin?!









Source: 
DerHans04 wikipedia.de


----------



## Almeria

alwn said:


> actually san siro or bernabeu are worse than Sucru Saracoglu. They need investment. Also players of fans dont decide the host, UEFA does. Players will go everywhere UEFA decides


:hahaha::applause::eek2::hammer::wave::crazy2:icard::weird::lol::lol::lol::lol:

This guy does not know Florentino Pérez...

very well, built stadiums to see comfortable as the Spanish teams win to Fenerbache and Galatasaray in your own home.


----------



## OnceBittenTwiceShy

Fabri88 said:


> The only European cities with more than a big stadium are:
> 
> • London
> • Paris
> • Istanbul
> • Madrid


How do you rate Glasgow's Ibrox Park, Celtic Park and Hampden?


Anyway, let's see how the stadium landscape will shape up towards 2020. 

It'd be too early to say Twickenham can't be used since it has a reputation with seggregation. 

If the final is to be held at a neutral venue than Bernabeu and Nou Camp would definitely be on the shortlist.


----------



## parcdesprinces

alwn said:


> I know Saracoglu. It is a new stadium with all facilities a five star arena.


Maybe you know it, but apparently you missed the fact that its surrounding facilities do not meet the UEFA Euro requirements (as it was reported by UEFA itself during the Euro 2016 race...)




Oh and BTW, the UEFA _'five star'_ thing, no longer exists (since 2006 ).


----------



## masterpaul

LucianPopa1000 said:


> Bernabeu roof covers at at least 65 K of the 85 K people,plus Euros are held in the summer,and the weather in Spain is more than ok,it could have no roof at all(am fost pe Bernabeu si stiu ce vorbesc).Istanbul is gorgeous,but football wise its a small town compared to Madrid.Madrid and Spain hosted so many events?what events LOL Olympics in 92 and 2CL finals in 20 years.Please:lol:


If this is really going to be a cup organized by euro then all countries hosting will get equal amount of games, meaning one stadium. Otherwise UEFA will have a hard time explaining why they favoured one country when another countrie's stadium could had easily replaced that one stadium.


----------



## LucianPopa1000

masterpaul said:


> If this is really going to be a cup organized by euro then all countries hosting will get equal amount of games, meaning one stadium. Otherwise UEFA will have a hard time explaining why they favoured one country when another countrie's stadium could had easily replaced that one stadium.


I don't think this is true.Its obvious UEFA gonna give at least 1 more game to the bigger footballing nation.I know National Arena in Bucharest is gonna,probably host 3 games,the federation president which is also in UEFA commitee told in an interview.And even if all the hosting countries will get the same number of games,one country will host the more important games than the other(from the same region).


----------



## Alanzeh

Already are known the ones that sent any purpose to host the tournament?


----------



## Sylver

Poland will probably get to host at least one match. Most likely the National Stadium


----------



## Fabri88

OnceBittenTwiceShy said:


> How do you rate Glasgow's Ibrox Park, Celtic Park and Hampden?


Glasgow? Again?

I already explained in this topic that Glasgow hasn't a >70K stadium!

In the eventuality of a Celtic bid (2024? 2028? 2032?) Glasgow could be very representative but not for a final!


----------



## Gherkin

Glasgow's Celtic Park can be expanded to >70k fairly easily, but the final would be held in Millennium Stadium (Cardiff) or perhaps even in Croke Park (Ireland) if a Celtic bid happened.


----------



## masterpaul

LucianPopa1000 said:


> I don't think this is true.Its obvious UEFA gonna give at least 1 more game to the bigger footballing nation.I know National Arena in Bucharest is gonna,probably host 3 games,the federation president which is also in UEFA commitee told in an interview.And even if all the hosting countries will get the same number of games,one country will host the more important games than the other(from the same region).


I ment one stadium per country.


----------



## ForzaD

Gherkin said:


> Glasgow's Celtic Park can be expanded to >70k fairly easily, but the final would be held in Millennium Stadium (Cardiff) or perhaps even in Croke Park (Ireland) if a Celtic bid happened.


Yeah, Scotland would get the majority of the games throughout the tournament so the other nations would be kept happy by being given the final.


----------



## Ukassiu18

alwn said:


> As far as I know Bernabeu roof covers only 15% of the arena. This is not allowed for a modern stadium. They didnt invest big money in the last 2 decades. oN the other hand I know Saracoglu. It is a new stadium with all facilities a five star arena. However as I didnt visit bernabeu maybe is better to listen the opinion of the people who visited both lately (saracoglu and Bernabeu). I repeat, players will go where UEFA decides, they are proffesionals earning a lot of money. As for the fans, history and the location attractiveness, Istanbul is one of the best place in Europe. Madrid is also attractive but Madrid/Spain have hosted so many important events in the past, maybe is better to give something to other countries as well. Maybe Poland/Ukraine was not the best championship in terms of organisation but what a hell it was ok


Euro 2012 has been recognized as the best organized in history.


----------



## JoeyJ

I would say

Madrid- Bernabeu
Berlin - Olympic Stadium
Munich - Allianz
Paris - Parc de Prinses
London - Wembley
Manchester - Old Trafford
Milan - San Siro
Lisbon - Da Luz
Amsterdam - Arena
Glasgow - Celtic Park
Copenhagen - Parken
Warsaw - National Stadium


----------



## LucianPopa1000

JoeyJ said:


> I would say
> 
> Madrid- Bernabeu
> Berlin - Olympic Stadium
> Munich - Allianz
> Paris - Parc de Prinses
> London - Wembley
> Manchester - Old Trafford
> Milan - San Siro
> Lisbon - Da Luz
> Amsterdam - Arena
> Glasgow - Celtic Park
> Copenhagen - Parken
> Warsaw - National Stadium


LOL 
Why would germans and english have two stadiums and spanish,italians only one?Why Parc the Pricen over the so much better,bigger Stade de France?Parken WTF?Why not national arena Bucharest,Donbass arena or Turk Telekom?Why Bernabeu ahead of Camp Nou?
There will be 13 host cities.These should be imo:
France-Stade de France 
UK-Wembley
Spain-Camp Nou/Bernabeu(would prefer Camp Nou)
Italy-Giuseppe Meazza
Germany-Allianz Arena/Olympiastadion Berlin(Allianz would be alot better)
Portugal-Da Luz
Holland-Amsterdam ArenA
Scotland-Celtic Park
Turkey-Turk Telekom
Russia-Luzhniki/Zenit(Zenit would be better but they'll go 4 Moscow)
Ukraine-Donbass Arena
Romania-National Arena/Poland-national arena(Romania would be better,Poland already hosted and will proly host Europa Lge final soon)
Sweden-Friends arena
Greece/Wales would be good too ahead of Scotland(especially Wales)
This way u have stadiums in all major areas of Europe-Western,Eastern,Balkans,North,South:cheers:


----------



## JoeyJ

LucianPopa1000 said:


> LOL
> Why would germans and english have two stadiums and spanish,italians only one?Why Parc the Pricen over the so much better,bigger Stade de France?Parken WTF?Why not national arena Bucharest,Donbass arena or Turk Telekom?Why Bernabeu ahead of Camp Nou?
> There will be 13 host cities.These should be imo:
> France-Stade de France
> UK-Wembley
> Spain-Camp Nou/Bernabeu(would prefer Camp Nou)
> Italy-Giuseppe Meazza
> Germany-Allianz Arena/Olympiastadion Berlin(Allianz would be alot better)
> Portugal-Da Luz
> Holland-Amsterdam ArenA
> Scotland-Celtic Park
> Turkey-Turk Telekom
> Russia-Luzhniki/Zenit(Zenit would be better but they'll go 4 Moscow)
> Ukraine-Donbass Arena
> Romania-National Arena/Poland-national arena(Romania would be better,Poland already hosted and will proly host Europa Lge final soon)
> Sweden-Friends arena
> Greece/Wales would be good too ahead of Scotland(especially Wales)
> This way u have stadiums in all major areas of Europe-Western,Eastern,Balkans,North,South:cheers:


I'm just giving my opinion. You don't have to LOL about it. To each it's own.

I just prefer Bernabeu over Nou Camp. Also because it is in the nation's capitol. Just like Berlin, and i choose Munich for it's central location. Two for England because it's the home of modern association football and Parc des Prinses over Stade de France because of it's history (opened in 1897) and it could easily host games as much as the Stade the France. Also, you have to give credit to Denmark for winning the cup in 1992, so they could host a game or two in the Parken stadium.

Also, i picked two in Germany and England because i think that, even with spreading the tournament all over the continent, they should keep it a bit central. Donetsk and Moscow would create immense travelling distances.

I selected 12, that means i have one more pick: Athens - Olympic stadium (also a former champion).


----------



## bongo-anders

att Popa1000

What´s wrong with Parken, the capacity is with 38,065 well over the 30,000 minimum capacity.

But Surely Friends Arena will be chosen if the Scandinavian countries will be hosting some matches so it doesn´t matter anyway, i was just wondering what your problem with Parken was.


----------



## LucianPopa1000

bongo-anders said:


> att Popa1000
> 
> What´s wrong with Parken, the capacity is with 38,065 well over the 30,000 minimum capacity.
> 
> But Surely Friends Arena will be chosen if the Scandinavian countries will be hosting some matches so it doesn´t matter anyway, i was just wondering what your problem with Parken was.


The capacity is kinda small,and its not that new.Not like the new 50-55k stadiums in eastern Europe.And like you said,Friends arena will get the nod .


----------



## LucianPopa1000

JoeyJ said:


> I'm just giving my opinion. You don't have to LOL about it. To each it's own.
> 
> I just prefer Bernabeu over Nou Camp. Also because it is in the nation's capitol. Just like Berlin, and i choose Munich for it's central location. Two for England because it's the home of modern association football and Parc des Prinses over Stade de France because of it's history (opened in 1897) and it could easily host games as much as the Stade the France. Also, you have to give credit to Denmark for winning the cup in 1992, so they could host a game or two in the Parken stadium.
> 
> Also, i picked two in Germany and England because i think that, even with spreading the tournament all over the continent, they should keep it a bit central. Donetsk and Moscow would create immense travelling distances.
> 
> I selected 12, that means i have one more pick: Athens - Olympic stadium (also a former champion).


I also like the Bernabeu better,but Bernabeu hosted a champs lge final lately,hosted the 1982 world cup final,its time to give the bigger more confortable Camp Nou a chance.Munich is in southern Germany.Two for England?theyre overrated as a league and had more than enough.
Parc de Princes has history?i hardly doubt it Uefa will even consider Parc de Prices,much smaller,kinda outdated stadium.The Stade de France is so superior than its not even worth debating this one.Berlin and Paris are not huge capitals iun terms of footballing history.They have some history,but theyre not huge footballing cities like London or Madrid.And Berlin has a runtrack,no thanks.I respect your opinion,but UEFA will choose the biggest,most modern and corporate friendly stadiums around.Surely.They always do.Denmark in 92 was one of those freak accidents :lol: (like greece or chelsea)giving them a euro venue just for that ...nah


----------



## JoeyJ

LucianPopa1000 said:


> i hardly doubt it Uefa will even consider Parc de Prices,much smaller,kinda outdated stadium.The Stade de France is so superior than its not even worth debating this one


I agree with you on that one. The UEFA will definitely pick Stade de France, no doubt about it. Just isn't my favorite stadium in Paris. I disagree with you on not giving Denmark and Greece a host-venue. You have to give credit where credit is due, and maybe a venue where a venue is due. 



LucianPopa1000 said:


> UEFA will choose the biggest,most modern and corporate friendly stadiums around


I'm afraid so. They will choose convenience over nostalgia any day of the week



LucianPopa1000 said:


> Munich is in southern Germany


But it is very central within Europe


----------



## PaulFCB

JoeyJ said:


> I would say
> 
> Madrid- Bernabeu
> Berlin - Olympic Stadium
> Munich - Allianz
> Paris - Parc de Prinses
> London - Wembley
> Manchester - Old Trafford
> Milan - San Siro
> Lisbon - Da Luz
> Amsterdam - Arena
> Glasgow - Celtic Park
> Copenhagen - Parken
> Warsaw - National Stadium


 Paris? Parc des Princes? This doesn't make any sense. Paris will host Euro 2016 + Final and second of all, why would anybody choose PP over SdF? Maybe Paris will host because Platini is an evil bitch ( :lol: ), but def on Stade de France if so.
Warsaw hosted games last year, Copenhagen is probably way too small for a Euro which will probably want only 50k+ stadiums since they will be spread across the continent and it would be a waste to host games on an under 40k stadium. Stockholm, almost for sure, at this time the only one capable from the Northern Nations ( a Nordic Euro would've been great too but would need investments from Finland, Denmark, Norway ).
Unlikely list of stadiums.

Also, Donetsk same thing as Warsaw, Moscow will most probably not host anyway because it would have already hosted WC games 2 years before and the distance is indeed too big, but there is absolutely no reason to give England and Germany 2 stadiums when you can easily choose 13 from 13 different countries and all inside the Union if they prefer ( would be a good idea ).


----------



## DimitriB

JoeyJ said:


> I would say
> 
> Madrid- Bernabeu
> Berlin - Olympic Stadium
> Munich - Allianz
> Paris - Parc de Prinses
> London - Wembley
> Manchester - Old Trafford
> Milan - San Siro
> Lisbon - Da Luz
> Amsterdam - Arena
> Glasgow - Celtic Park
> Copenhagen - Parken
> Warsaw - National Stadium


I say ;

1 country
16 teams
8 good stadiums


----------



## George_D

DimitriB said:


> I say ;
> 
> 1 country
> 16 teams
> 8 good stadiums



i agree 100%

1 country
16 teams
8 good stadiums


----------



## PaulFCB

I personally prefer a 8 team Euro with only the best of the best playing. 16 team Euro's come up with Groups like A from Euro 2012.


----------



## LucianPopa1000

PaulFCB said:


> I personally prefer a 8 team Euro with only the best of the best playing. 16 team Euro's come up with Groups like A from Euro 2012.


Actually those fucked up lousy groups are UEFA's fault.They consider the hosts as seeded teams.Meaning they consider Poland or Ukraine as good as Spain or Germany.Hosts should be considered what they are,if theyre a pot 4 team(like Austria was in 08) then thats waht they should be,not automatically in pot 1 because ur the host.hno:


----------



## PaulFCB

Euro 2008 also had Greece as seeded team and practically it was the weakest pot, if the Czech Republic would've won the last games of the Preliminary Stage it would've pushed down Holland to Pot 2 if I'm not mistaking, but the idea was Pot 1 was weak overall, even if The Netherlands was completing it and playing against Italy and France in the Group Stage.
In a 8 team system they could very well eliminate the pots as any draw could prove 2 equally strong groups anyway.


----------



## LucianPopa1000

PaulFCB said:


> Euro 2008 also had Greece as seeded team and practically it was the weakest pot, if the Czech Republic would've won the last games of the Preliminary Stage it would've pushed down Holland to Pot 2 if I'm not mistaking, but the idea was Pot 1 was weak overall, even if The Netherlands was completing it and playing against Italy and France in the Group Stage.
> In a 8 team system they could very well eliminate the pots as any draw could prove 2 equally strong groups anyway.


Oh yeah,another stupid thing from uefa,the holders are also seeded(pot 1 )teams.This is not normaly a big problem,because the winner is a big footballing nation.Greece was an accident,and becaseu the 08 host were both second tier teams (interms of value) we got some fucked up groups .Thanks to UEFA seeding processhno:


----------



## dinamo_zagreb

PaulFCB said:


> I personally prefer a 8 team Euro with only the best of the best playing. 16 team Euro's come up with Groups like A from Euro 2012.


And yet, there was some great competition in that group and each team had chances to go through before last matchday, and games were very interesting.

16 team tournament is ideal, 8 is bit "short" - it was OK before Eastern countries breakups, like you got five competitive teams out of one (Yugoslavia) or a least two from USSR and two from CSSR.

A propos seedings, home team has to have some sort of advantage. And, if it is not enough attractive for you, than knock-out stage is, so everybody gets something for themselves.


----------



## PaulFCB

dinamo_zagreb said:


> And, if it is not enough attractive for you, than knock-out stage is, so everybody gets something for themselves.


 Not really, the 16 Team Euro becomes interesting starting from the Semi-Finals at best ( not in 2008 ).
An 8 Team Euro would make the competition interesting starting from the Group Stage.
A top 8 Euro can look like this: Spain, Portugal, England, Host ( no need for 2 hosts here ) / Germany, The Netherlands, Croatia, Italy - Semifinals: Spain-Italy / Germany-England / Final Spain-Germany, no more junk games like Spain-France, Germany-Greece etc.


----------



## LucianPopa1000

PaulFCB said:


> Not really, the 16 Team Euro becomes interesting starting from the Semi-Finals at best ( not in 2008 ).
> An 8 Team Euro would make the competition interesting starting from the Group Stage.
> A top 8 Euro can look like this: Spain, Portugal, England, Host ( no need for 2 hosts here ) / Germany, The Netherlands, Croatia, Italy - Semifinals: Spain-Italy / Germany-England / Final Spain-Germany, no more junk games like Spain-France, Germany-Greece etc.


The more games the better.More money for UEFA,more teams get a chance to play in a major tournament,more tourists go to host country.....I think that 16 teams was ideal.24 teams is more than half of Europe:nuts:16 was the best teams along the rising eastern/balkan teams plus the smaller nations in western europe.24 u get slovakia norway....not big footballing countries


----------



## CSKA_Moscow

I want this:
Spain - Vicente Calderón
Germany - Allianz Arena
Italy - Juventus Arena
England - Etihad Stadium
Portugal - Estádio Alvalade XXI
The Netherland - AFAS Stadion
Russia - Stadion CSKA
Croatia - Stadion Maksimir
Greece - Athens Olympic Stadium 'Spyros Louis'
Switzerland - St. Jakob Park
France - Stade Vélodrome
Sweden - Friends Arena


----------



## LucianPopa1000

CSKA_Moscow said:


> I want this:
> Spain - Vicente Calderón
> Germany - Allianz Arena
> Italy - Juventus Arena
> England - Etihad Stadium
> Portugal - Estádio Alvalade XXI
> The Netherland - AFAS Stadion
> Russia - Stadion CSKA
> Croatia - Stadion Maksimir
> Greece - Athens Olympic Stadium 'Spyros Louis'
> Switzerland - St. Jakob Park
> France - Stade Vélodrome
> Sweden - Friends Arena


 Except Allianz and Friends arenas none of the one you said will host.:lol:Not in a million years.


----------



## MS20

LucianPopa1000 said:


> Except Allianz and Friends arenas none of the one you said will host.:lol:Not in a million years.


Good thing that Stade Velodrome is hosting it is 3 years then...


----------



## GEwinnen

LucianPopa1000 said:


> Except Allianz and Friends arenas none of the one you said will host.:lol:Not in a million years.



Allianz Arena won't host too, if Germany will be a host the games belong to the biggest and greatest city in the country! This isn't Munich.


----------



## LucianPopa1000

GEwinnen said:


> Allianz Arena won't host too, if Germany will be a host the games belong to the biggest and greatest city in the country! This isn't Munich.


runtrack stadium ?no thank you.Allianz pisses all over Berlin.Just like Camp Nou is better than Bernabeu and there are other examples.UEFA should look first at stadiums,and Berlin ain't that much better than Munich(as a city),if is at all.
uefa,fifa should try to avoid runtrack stadiums as much as possible,theyre not made for football.I dont want to go thousands of miles,spend big bucks and sit in an endstand and be at 200 yards from the opposite goal.Im sure any UK spain fans will say the same.For the 6k extra tickets Berlin has(which only like 1 k is going to be for each of the 2 teams playing)NO THANKS.Slightly smaller cap in a proper football stadium.A World class stadium.:tongue:


----------



## Harry1990

LucianPopa1000 said:


> LOL
> Why would germans and english have two stadiums and spanish,italians only one?Why Parc the Pricen over the so much better,bigger Stade de France?Parken WTF?Why not national arena Bucharest,Donbass arena or Turk Telekom?Why Bernabeu ahead of Camp Nou?
> There will be 13 host cities.These should be imo:
> France-Stade de France
> UK-Wembley
> Spain-Camp Nou/Bernabeu(would prefer Camp Nou)
> Italy-Giuseppe Meazza
> Germany-Allianz Arena/Olympiastadion Berlin(Allianz would be alot better)
> Portugal-Da Luz
> Holland-Amsterdam ArenA
> Scotland-Celtic Park
> Turkey-Turk Telekom
> Russia-Luzhniki/Zenit(Zenit would be better but they'll go 4 Moscow)
> Ukraine-Donbass Arena
> Romania-National Arena/Poland-national arena(Romania would be better,Poland already hosted and will proly host Europa Lge final soon)
> Sweden-Friends arena
> Greece/Wales would be good too ahead of Scotland(especially Wales)
> This way u have stadiums in all major areas of Europe-Western,Eastern,Balkans,North,South:cheers:


Why have you listed Uk than scotland and wales sepreratly?


----------



## LucianPopa1000

^^ My bad sorry.


----------



## GEwinnen

LucianPopa1000 said:


> runtrack stadium ?no thank you.Allianz pisses all over Berlin.Just like Camp Nou is better than Bernabeu and there are other examples.UEFA should look first at stadiums,and Berlin ain't that much better than Munich(as a city),if is at all.
> uefa,fifa should try to avoid runtrack stadiums as much as possible,theyre not made for football.I dont want to go thousands of miles,spend big bucks and sit in an endstand and be at 200 yards from the opposite goal.Im sure any UK spain fans will say the same.For the 6k extra tickets Berlin has(which only like 1 k is going to be for each of the 2 teams playing)NO THANKS.Slightly smaller cap in a proper football stadium.A World class stadium.:tongue:


Save your time and don't wirte stupid things about matters you won't decide anyway. The DFB (german FA) already said that Berlin will be the candidate city for Germany in 2020.

The UEFA doesn't care about the nonsense you've written, the 2015 UCL final will be in Berlin. In the last decade 4 UCL finals were in athletic stadiums. Btw, the Euro 2008 and 2012 finals were in athletic stadiums!


Camp Nou is better than Bernabeu??:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:


----------



## LucianPopa1000

GEwinnen said:


> Save your time and don't wirte stupid things about matters you won't decide anyway. The DFB (german FA) already said that Berlin will be the candidate city for Germany in 2020.
> 
> The UEFA doesn't care about the nonsense you've written, the 2015 UCL final will be in Berlin. In the last decade 4 UCL finals were in athletic stadiums. Btw, the Euro 2008 and 2012 finals were in athletic stadiums!
> 
> 
> Camp Nou is better than Bernabeu??:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:


Bigger legroom,wider more modern seats,less steep(bernabeu is too steep).Yeah i think its better.
If the germans will propose olympia ahead of allianz well their stupid.Those finals were in athletics stadiums cause there arent sufficient large proper football stadiums in Europe.But with the new Wembley,new mestalla,new la peineta,hopefully millennium stadium,new velodrome,new zenit (aongside the already existant bernabeu,camp nou,,allianz,san siro,da luz)we will have vast majority of finals on PROPER football stadiums.Im not saying runtrack stadiums cannot be modern,just the viewing experience sucks big time,especially for the fans of the 2 finalists which are placed in the endstands,miles from the pitch.The sidelines have acceptable views but those,unfortunately are taken by VIPS,sponsors,LOC,football family and neutrals,locals...Most football fans prefer proper football stadiums,face it.Dont tell me Utd or barca fans liked lousy moscow or rome stadiums.Cause they didnt.Berlin deserved a final,but that should be it.No finals every 10 years for olympic stadia


----------



## GEwinnen

LucianPopa1000 said:


> Bigger legroom,wider more modern seats,less steep(bernabeu is too steep).Yeah i think its better.


The steeper the better!!
Nou Camp looks a bit rotten, it needs a general refurbsihment, esp. the roof! Benabeu looks better!

.


> Most football fans prefer proper football stadiums,face it.Dont tell me Utd or barca fans liked lousy moscow or rome stadiums.Cause they didnt.Berlin deserved a final,but that should be it.No finals every 10 years for olympic stadia


A final isn't just about the stadium, it is also about the host city! Rome, Moscow, Athens, Istanbul and Berlin are great cities.


----------



## JoeyJ

2020 is still far away. Who knows what new venues have rissen by then. Rotterdam plans a new stadium for Feyenoord, the New Kuip. Camp Nou can be renovated in the mean time. 

And i agree with LucianPopa1000 on the Olympic stadiums issue. They are not designed for football matches, so they shouldn't be used for football matches.


----------



## masterpaul

Leedsrule said:


> UEFA dont care about that, all they care about is MONEY. A bigger stadium means more money for them! Also, with the Olympiakos stadium and the new panikinikos stadium thats 3 decent stadiums in athens.


Olympiakos expansion could be done any moment over summer. They can expand it to 42,000. They have the funds, there not trouble economically out all. The president of Olympiakos also stated that there stadium is slightly too small.

Panathinaikos on the other hand... is pretty much fucked. 1) Because some idiots in the board don't want to sell the club so that they dont loose there wages, and they make it very difficult for anyone to get the club. 2) Their board is full of old money leaching Grandads 3) Their president Alizoufo is completely mental and is kicking out any good players they have left.


----------



## Bogus Law

@ LucianPopa1000 and the whole discussion on the previous page

What's the point in claiming that Ireland isn't a big football nation - neither Austria or Switzerland were in 2008 nor Poland was in 2012. Not only Dublin has two great stadiums but also Irish fans are absolutely fantastic, just take a look at this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOLgXjplfh4

I'm sure Ireland would make a great co-host

@ all the people wishing to see Euro in Prague

There are currently two 20K modern stadiums there and it seems that they perfectly meet the needs of the clubs playing there. Euro needs bigger venues.


----------



## Leedsrule

TBH Croke park is terrible for soccer. Also, one end is not covered and unless the climate is good enough (Which it certainly isnt in Ireland) then all seats should be covered. 

And although tecnically it is fairly modern, it looks pretty old and shit :/


----------



## italiano_pellicano

probably italy win the next uefa


----------



## Gombos

both Dublin and Bucharest deserve to host it and stop arguing "drug addicted", "gypsies", etc. worse is to have such education! jackasses and racist pricks, and low educated people. do you ask for bans? respect, ok?


----------



## PAO13

masterpaul said:


> Not giving to greece, would also be unfair.


I'm rather confident Spyros Louis will be included.



Leedsrule said:


> panikinikos


lol, that one was new to me.


----------



## masterpaul

PAO13 said:


> I'm rather confident Spyros Louis will be included.
> 
> 
> 
> lol, that one was new to me.


Well  Kapies fores hanoume ena grama 

*sometimes we loose a letter*


----------



## Almeria

Until 1992 UEFA used this type of logo:



Unable to retrieve (something like) by 2020:


----------



## JoeyJ

Almeria said:


> Until 1992 UEFA used this type of logo:
> 
> 
> 
> Unable to retrieve (something like) by 2020:


That is actually quite nice, well done. This logo really is a part of UEFA history so why not


----------



## www.sercan.de

So only EU members are allowed to be a host city?!?


----------



## parcdesprinces

www.sercan.de said:


> So only EU members are allowed to be a host city?!?


You seem to forget that this flag is the European flag and not only the EU flag .

For example, it's also used by....









And as far as I remember Turkey, Russia, Ukraine etc are members of the Council of Europe, aren't they? 
(Not to forget either that the Council of Europe was the first to use this flag)


----------



## Aka

Yep, that's the Flag of Europe, representing the entire continent, not one organization.


----------



## www.sercan.de

I still do not like it. Maybe because of i am a Galatasaray fan


----------



## Nikola10

why not host in Belgrade, Serbia? very big stadium


----------



## LucianPopa1000

Nikola10 said:


> why not host in Belgrade, Serbia? very big stadium


not that big,plus its very old and outdated.And you need like 10 stadiums.


----------



## Nikola10

No worrie ask the owner of the UEFA EURO give serbia some money and done deal


----------



## Leedsrule

Great idea :applause:

hno:


----------



## Nikola10

LMAOOO


----------



## masterpaul

Nikola10 said:


> No worrie ask the owner of the UEFA EURO give serbia some money and done deal


UEFA doesnt give money. U build it yourself.. or no EURO.


----------



## Nikola10

masterpaul said:


> UEFA doesnt give money. U build it yourself.. or no EURO.


LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!:cheers::cheers::cheers:


----------



## DaveyCakes

^^Looks like Platini is backing Istanbul for the final


----------



## LucianPopa1000

Red85 said:


> Only one fits for (semi) finals. Wembley.
> 
> Every other decision would be rediculous. Wembley is the cathedral of football and should host the last matches.


Camp Nou,Wembley,San Siro,Stade de France,Bernabeu.Wembley maybe the cathedral in england,but it isnt the only huge stadium in Europe.And it has 2 champions league finals in 3 years ,you had the olympic games.I say Uk had enough.Time to give the final to Barcelonas Camp Nou or Madrid Bernabeu.By 2020 they will be bigger and more modern than Wembley(If they do those uprades).Even without them,Camp Nou hasnt hosted in a long time a major final and should get the nod.San Siro same thing.
Enough of Wembley.Even english ppl said they enjoyed better the allianz arena or camp nou.Theres nothing like sitting in the camp nou upper tier in a warm june night and looking at the city.And the city is straight GORGEOUS.


----------



## Gombos

Kaufmann said:


> Germany (DFB) nominated four cities for the euro 2020
> 
> - Berlin
> - Dortmund
> -Stuttgart
> - München
> 
> all cities are big enough (infrastructure) and have got good stadiums. My favourites are Berlin and Dortmund


my only favourite from these 4 is Munchen.


----------



## www.sercan.de

_8. Stadio Olimpico di Roma 
Location: Rome, Italy
Capacity: 72,698
Built: 1953_

SAN SIRO!!!!!!!!! 


I looks like Turkey / TFF will not bid.The sports minister said that they will try to get the Olympics and that the EURO dream is over


----------



## Leedsrule

LucianPopa1000 said:


> Camp Nou,Wembley,San Siro,Stade de France,Bernabeu.Wembley maybe the cathedral in england,but it isnt the only huge stadium in Europe.And it has 2 champions league finals in 3 years ,you had the olympic games.I say Uk had enough.Time to give the final to Barcelonas Camp Nou or Madrid Bernabeu.By 2020 they will be bigger and more modern than Wembley(If they do those uprades).Even without them,Camp Nou hasnt hosted in a long time a major final and should get the nod.San Siro same thing.
> Enough of Wembley.Even english ppl said they enjoyed better the allianz arena or camp nou.Theres nothing like sitting in the camp nou upper tier in a warm june night and looking at the city.And the city is straight GORGEOUS.


New wembley isnt the best, but it kis one of the biggest and are definately interested in hosting. i agree its not the only option, but i can see it happening.

Nou camp is not good enough at the moment, not enough VIP boxes for UEFA's liking and the design is outdated. It is big, yes, but thats about it.




www.sercan.de said:


> _8. Stadio Olimpico di Roma
> Location: Rome, Italy
> Capacity: 72,698
> Built: 1953_
> 
> SAN SIRO!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> I looks like Turkey / TFF will not bid.The sports minister said that they will try to get the Olympics and that the EURO dream is over


San siro dosent look as good imo, having a venue in rome spreads out the tounament a bit more and I think san siro is outdated. Istanbul is my first choice for the final, Rome is my second.

I hope turkey do bid and get it, but I think they also want to host the WC in future so may wait for that as well as focusing on the Olympics 2020.


----------



## LucianPopa1000

^^Well european stadiums arent usually packed with rings of suites like NFL ones.Camp Nou has quite a decent amount of suites,and i'm sure if the upgrade will be done in the next few years they will add suites and vip seating.What do you mean the design is outdated?If it doesnt look like an NFL stadium(like Wembley Emirates Da Luz...)its an outdated design?Camp Nou has as good views as Wembley from any seat in the house,with the same legroom.If u put it this way allianz is rather simple also.The design is better for atmosphere than Wembleys-stands are closer,lots of overhang to bring the upper tiers close,and no middle club -silent tier to kill of the atmosphere.Wembley is a stadium designed for making money,not for pressure from spectators.San Siro ,Dortmund ,Old Trafford those are specifically made to have a daunting atmosphere.Huge steep tier everywhere.
Its big and thats about it,i could say the same thing about Wembley,many ppl say its a soulles huge bowl.
I also mentioned Bernabeu.That one has tons of suites(more than Wembley,double the amount).
San Siro is outdated,yes.But it would be significantly improved if it would get the nod(not necessarily for the final).While Wembley is a finished product.
Rome?smallish-borderline capacity and has runtrack.
Turkey should definetely bid.TTA is a beauty,and a beast of a stadium .
For the final only Madrid/Barcelona ,Stade de France(very unlikely because it will host in 2016),Wembley are the only real candidates.San Siro,Istanbul unlikely.It all leads to Wembley vs the one of the two Spanish for the final.And considering Wembley hosted/will host 2 CL finals in 3 years and the Olympics in London last year.And the Spanish are upgrading their two legendary stadiums ,and they haven't hosted in a while.Spain should get the nod.


----------



## carnifex2005

Kaufmann said:


> Germany (DFB) nominated four cities for the euro 2020
> 
> - Berlin
> - Dortmund
> -Stuttgart
> - München
> 
> all cities are big enough (infrastructure) and have got good stadiums. My favourites are Berlin and Dortmund


Pretty sure none of those stadiums fit the 70,000 seats requirement for a final. Remember that those stadiums shrink a lot when they are all-seaters. Then again but 2020, they could expand those stadiums some how.


----------



## RMB2007

^^ Berlin does.


----------



## carnifex2005

RMB2007 said:


> ^^ Berlin does.


That's what I thought but for the 2006 World Cup final it held 69,000. I'm guessing seats were removed for press or something.


----------



## Leedsrule

LucianPopa1000 said:


> ^^Well european stadiums arent usually packed with rings of suites like NFL ones.Camp Nou has quite a decent amount of suites,and i'm sure if the upgrade will be done in the next few years they will add suites and vip seating.What do you mean the design is outdated?If it doesnt look like an NFL stadium(like Wembley Emirates Da Luz...)its an outdated design?Camp Nou has as good views as Wembley from any seat in the house,with the same legroom.If u put it this way allianz is rather simple also.The design is better for atmosphere than Wembleys-stands are closer,lots of overhang to bring the upper tiers close,and no middle club -silent tier to kill of the atmosphere.Wembley is a stadium designed for making money,not for pressure from spectators.San Siro ,Dortmund ,Old Trafford those are specifically made to have a daunting atmosphere.Huge steep tier everywhere.
> Its big and thats about it,i could say the same thing about Wembley,many ppl say its a soulles huge bowl.
> I also mentioned Bernabeu.That one has tons of suites(more than Wembley,double the amount).
> San Siro is outdated,yes.But it would be significantly improved if it would get the nod(not necessarily for the final).While Wembley is a finished product.
> Rome?smallish-borderline capacity and has runtrack.
> Turkey should definetely bid.TTA is a beauty,and a beast of a stadium .
> For the final only Madrid/Barcelona ,Stade de France(very unlikely because it will host in 2016),Wembley are the only real candidates.San Siro,Istanbul unlikely.It all leads to Wembley vs the one of the two Spanish for the final.And considering Wembley hosted/will host 2 CL finals in 3 years and the Olympics in London last year.And the Spanish are upgrading their two legendary stadiums ,and they haven't hosted in a while.Spain should get the nod.


Um...I dont want it to look like an NFL stadium obviously, its just that it was built in the 50's. Accoring to Secan's boxes thread it only has 23 boxes which is tiny compared to the majority of big stadia which have 100+. Also I could be wrong but im sure Wembley has better legroom than camp nou. And having been to Wembley multiple tmes and camp nou twice, You definately feel closer to the pitch at the top at wembley than camp nou because at barcelona you are so high up and exposed without a roof so you feel far away. I dont want the final to be hosted in wembley, but I do think it is ideal for it and UEFA probably agree. And the chances are the finals will go to either wembley or a stadium with a running track. Also, in the Europian cup final the atmosphere will not be the best as the majority of the crowd will be locals, and even the passionate fans often arent as passionate as club fans. 
Wembley is fairly soulless, i agree, but there arent many other options with more 'soul'. 

Bernabéu may have lots of suites but that is also fairly outdated, built in the 40's. Although there are plans to upgrade it, and the stadium is a definate contendor for the finals. they wont upgrade san siro, with both inter and AC looking at moving out. It would be pointless to pay for an upgrade for 3 games. Olimpico may have a running track but I doubt that will have a huge impact on UEFA's descision. Even with a track the VIP level is about the same distance from the pitch as somewhere like wembley, and lots of the biggest stadiums have tracks. Its also unlikely Italy will host anything themselves any time soon.

Turkey is where it should be imo, but apparently that is unlikely. Bernabau maybe with upgrades, possibly barcelona but spain can only bid one of them for the final. It definately wont be stade de france in the final, blatter is a **** but he wouldnt do that. Definately not San Siro for reasons explained above, Wembley is probably the favorate (Doubt theyd take the 2011 and 2013 CL final into accound when decideing the 2020 euro's hosts, completely different; Olympics is practically irrelivent). I dont think it should be spain and I hope it isnt, until they build a proper national stadium.


----------



## LucianPopa1000

Leedsrule said:


> Um...I dont want it to look like an NFL stadium obviously, its just that it was built in the 50's. Accoring to Secan's boxes thread it only has 23 boxes which is tiny compared to the majority of big stadia which have 100+. Also I could be wrong but im sure Wembley has better legroom than camp nou. And having been to Wembley multiple tmes and camp nou twice, You definately feel closer to the pitch at the top at wembley than camp nou because at barcelona you are so high up and exposed without a roof so you feel far away. I dont want the final to be hosted in wembley, but I do think it is ideal for it and UEFA probably agree. And the chances are the finals will go to either wembley or a stadium with a running track. Also, in the Europian cup final the atmosphere will not be the best as the majority of the crowd will be locals, and even the passionate fans often arent as passionate as club fans.
> Wembley is fairly soulless, i agree, but there arent many other options with more 'soul'.
> 
> Bernabéu may have lots of suites but that is also fairly outdated, built in the 40's. Although there are plans to upgrade it, and the stadium is a definate contendor for the finals. they wont upgrade san siro, with both inter and AC looking at moving out. It would be pointless to pay for an upgrade for 3 games. Olimpico may have a running track but I doubt that will have a huge impact on UEFA's descision. Even with a track the VIP level is about the same distance from the pitch as somewhere like wembley, and lots of the biggest stadiums have tracks. Its also unlikely Italy will host anything themselves any time soon.
> 
> Turkey is where it should be imo, but apparently that is unlikely. Bernabau maybe with upgrades, possibly barcelona but spain can only bid one of them for the final. It definately wont be stade de france in the final, blatter is a **** but he wouldnt do that. Definately not San Siro for reasons explained above, Wembley is probably the favorate (Doubt theyd take the 2011 and 2013 CL final into accound when decideing the 2020 euro's hosts, completely different; Olympics is practically irrelivent). I dont think it should be spain and I hope it isnt, until they build a proper national stadium.


The number of boxes is irrelevant,the nr. of seats in them actually matters.
Both Wembley and Camp Nou have 80cm legroom.Wembley has like 1 inch wider seats but thats not a big advantage.The distance last row to pitch is 85m at Wembley.At Camp Nou it is 74m(at halfway line both).And theyre both 48m tall from pitch to last row.So Camp Nou is closer.Weather is beautifull in Barcelona and its quite nice in the upper tier in the summer time.
What stadium with runtrack?the only possible on is Berlin.And its bordeline small capacity wise.It hosted 69k in 06 world cup final and surely the forts couple of rows are with restricted view,so cap will decrease even more.1-2k the very least.
Bernabeu has been updated time and time again,especially the luxury suites.
And you do realise that Wembley does get the final and semis england could kiss goodbye to a world cup for another 2 decades:lol:It would be grossly unfair to give england (London) so many finals in the champs lge,Euro 2020, Olympics last year.Too many sporting events in a single country in a decade.Actually all these ,imo ,are a compensation of some sort because they got snubbed by FIFA when 2018 world cup host was decided.But its not fair to the other countries in Europe.
Wembley would be a marvelous host.So would Madrid/Barcelona.Paris,Milan,Istanbul ,even Berlin ,like you/I said,have almost no chances to get the big final.But its more to a big tournament than the final.Which numerous times is an ugly game


----------



## b5254

Platini is destroying the European championship. The Swedish fans use to be like a community and travel around together during the championships. Now this isn't possible and most people will probably stay at home instead.


----------



## Leedsrule

@Lucianpopa
But like I said you feel further away in the Nou camp without a room over your head you feel more exposed, and the upper tier is steep so you feel higher.
Athletics stadium possibilities: Rome, Berlin and Istanbul. Berlin would be find to host it, considering the WC final was held there. I think Rome is a possibility and Istanbul is likely if they bid.
I did say i dont want wembley to get it, if youve been reading my posts, because it will affect (But not ruin) the chances of us getting a WC or euros in future and i probably wouldnt be able to afford tickets anyway. However it wouldnt be unfair to give them 2 cl finals, an olympics and euros final within 8 years. brazil are holding the world cup and olympics 2 years apart ffs! It is fair we gat it, and like I said the CL final isnt that much of a big deal and the olympics is almost irrelivent to FIFA and UEFA (Like i said, brazil got the WC and olympics 2 years apart). 
Like I said, Paris will DEFINATELY not get the final in 2020, you might as well rule that out entirely now.
I dont really undertand your last 2 sentances :/


----------



## RMB2007

Hopefully the WRU and FAW can agree to put the Millennium Stadium forward as one of the venues to host some matches.


----------



## LucianPopa1000

RMB2007 said:


> Hopefully the WRU and FAW can agree to put the Millennium Stadium forward as one of the venues to host some matches.


I love Millennium stadium,its quite the stadium.But i dont think UEFA will have games in any of Scotland,Wales or Ireland.If they were to award games to one of the 3,although Scotland is my favourite,Wales has the best stadium .


----------



## Aka

b5254 said:


> Platini is destroying the European championship. The Swedish fans use to be like a community and travel around together during the championships. Now this isn't possible and most people will probably stay at home instead.


Won't Swedish fans make bigger trips in 2014? Or even 2018?


----------



## b5254

Aka said:


> Won't Swedish fans make bigger trips in 2014? Or even 2018?


Sure, if we qualify to those championships. But if Platini will turn the European championships to a Champions league, the Swedish fans will mostly stay at home. Nobody have the energy to travel around the whole Europe to follow the Swedish team.


----------



## Aka

Anyway...



1- Lisbon
2- Madrid
3- London
4- Rome
5- Berlin (ou Munich)
6- Istanbul
7- Solna
8- A central-eastern country like the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary (it depends on the stadia)
9- Amsterdam
10- Athens
11- Something in the Balkans
12- Bucharest
13- A random choice, it can be in the Alps, or Ireland, or even in Scandinavia




I doubt that Kiev is chosen; they hosted the Euro 2012 final already (mere 8 years). I have my doubts about Moscow too, since they're hosting the World Cup two years prior (see what Platini said about the Olympics in Istanbul?). Paris? Only if Platini does it again; they're hosting the 2016 final. Poland? Hmmm... Maybe, since they didn't get the 2012 final, but I'm not sure if that would be too fair. The Caucasus is too far away, it's for European Super Cups. Being Wembley almost certain, we will only get Scotland if they don't chose Dublin from my point 13. The Baltic countries don't, and I doubt they will, have big enough stadiums. I don't believe they'll pick both Amsterdam and Brussels; it's either one or the other; they're too close.




Then again, I'm sure I'm 60% wrong.


----------



## Gombos

well, people should understand it is only for this anniversary edition. the format will not be kept.



Aka said:


> Anyway...
> 
> 
> 
> 1- Lisbon
> 2- Madrid
> 3- London
> 4- Rome
> 5- Berlin (ou Munich)
> 6- Istanbul
> 7- Solna
> 8- A central-eastern country like the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary (it depends on the stadia)
> 9- Amsterdam
> 10- Athens
> 11- Something in the Balkans
> 12- Bucharest
> 13- A random choice, it can be in the Alps, or Ireland, or even in Scandinavia


I hope my country Romania will be selected. UEFA should note that Bucharest was able to host the 2012 Europa League Final. and if Ukraine was able to host it, we also can. moreover, all the highways will be ready until then. even better than at the 2012 Euro. Bucharest is good for clubs and a perfect location, in South Romania, not far from Constanza with the seaside and from South Transylvania with medieval towns.

first, countries without an already built stadium or without an arena in construction will probably not be selected, Platini said something.

secondly, Poland and Ukraine with all the respect should be out of discussion because both countries hosted the 2012 Euro. and France the same because of the 2016 Euro, wtf?

so, my list would be, and I'm trying to stick objective:

*1. Ireland - Dublin (Aviva)
2. England - London (Wembley)
3. Sweden - Stockholm (actually Solna, Friends Arena)
4. Spain - Barcelona if it will have a new stadium in 2020 if not Santiago Bernabeu from Madrid
5. Germany - Munich (Allianz Arena)
6. Romania - Bucharest (Arena Nazională)
7. Turkey - Istanbul (the stadium of Galatasaray)
8. Greece- Athens (? the Olympic Stadium or which one, because Greece never hosted)
9. Italy - Milan or Rome (definitely, because Italy didn't host an Euro since 1980)
10. Scotland - Glasgow
11. Wales - Cardiff*

so until now, we have 11 countries that totally deserve to host in my opinion. 1-2 more. opinions? possibly:

*12. Netherlands - Amsterdam
13. Russia - Moscow or St Petersburg New Zenit Stadium (I chose Russia because even though it will host the 2024 World Cup, this country never hosted the Euro and having good results, while Portugal already hosted the Euro in 2004 being still a little bit maybe too fresh)* 



Aka said:


> Then again, I'm sure I'm 60% wrong.


me too, I would also like to see Oslo, Belgrade, Budapest, Prague (I feel sorry for it but that stadium is too small), Baku (for the people of Azerbaijan), maybe Croatia, Bulgaria, etc. but UEFA decide this autumn in September.


----------



## flierfy

Leedsrule said:


> 8. *Stadio Olimpico di Roma *
> Location: Rome, Italy
> Capacity: 72,698
> Built: 1953


I dread the prospect that Italy applies with its current crop of stadia. Whatever they chose their host stadium would be the eyesore of this Euro.
And dare they to apply with the Juventus Stadium. The 30'000 seater clause is actually meant for small countries like Switzerland, Denmark or Norway and not for big countries like Italy.


----------



## LucianPopa1000

Gombos said:


> well, people should understand it is only for this anniversary edition. the format will not be kept.
> 
> 
> 
> I hope my country Romania will be selected. UEFA should note that Bucharest was able to host the 2012 Europa League Final. and if Ukraine was able to host it, we also can. moreover, all the highways will be ready until then. even better than at the 2012 Euro. Bucharest is good for clubs and a perfect location, in South Romania, not far from Constanza with the seaside and from South Transylvania with medieval towns.
> 
> first, countries without an already built stadium or without an arena in construction will probably not be selected, Platini said something.
> 
> secondly, Poland and Ukraine with all the respect should be out of discussion because both countries hosted the 2012 Euro. and France the same because of the 2016 Euro, wtf?
> 
> so, my list would be, and I'm trying to stick objective:
> 
> *1. Ireland - Dublin (Aviva)
> 2. England - London (Wembley)
> 3. Sweden - Stockholm (actually Solna, Friends Arena)
> 4. Spain - Barcelona if it will have a new stadium in 2020 if not Santiago Bernabeu from Madrid
> 5. Germany - Munich (Allianz Arena)
> 6. Romania - Bucharest (Arena Nazională)
> 7. Turkey - Istanbul (the stadium of Galatasaray)
> 8. Greece- Athens (? the Olympic Stadium or which one, because Greece never hosted)
> 9. Italy - Torino (definitely, because Italy didn't host an Euro since 1980)
> 10. Scotland - Edinburgh
> 11. Wales - Cardiff*
> 
> so until now, we have 11 countries that totally deserve to host in my opinion. 1-2 more. opinions? possibly:
> 
> *12. Netherlands - Amsterdam
> 13. Russia - Moscow (I chose Russia because even though it will host the 2024 World Cup, this country never hosted the Euro and having good results, while Portugal already hosted the Euro in 2004 being still a little bit maybe too fresh)*
> 
> 
> 
> me too, I would also like to see Oslo, Belgrade, Budapest, Prague (I feel sorry for it but that stadium is too small), Baku (for the people of Azerbaijan), maybe Croatia, Bulgaria, etc. but UEFA decide this autumn in September.


Gombos, my dear countryman,there's no way in hell uefa is gonna give games to all the british nations(UK,Scotalnd,Ireland,Wales).If they give to one of them(except UK), i think its more than enough.
Torino will not have any games,has a too small capacity.Milano or Rome will get from Italy.
Russia will host the world cup,i doubt they will get anything.France will host in 2016 they shouldnt get anything,but considering Platini is French who knows...


----------



## GEwinnen

www.sercan.de said:


> _8. Stadio Olimpico di Roma
> Location: Rome, Italy
> Capacity: 72,698
> Built: 1953_
> 
> SAN SIRO!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> I looks like Turkey / TFF will not bid.The sports minister said that they will try to get the Olympics and that the EURO dream is over


San Siro? No, it is too old and outdated, Milan wants to build a new stadium!


----------



## GEwinnen

carnifex2005 said:


> Pretty sure none of those stadiums fit the 70,000 seats requirement for a final. Remember that those stadiums shrink a lot when they are all-seaters. Then again but 2020, they could expand those stadiums some how.


Berlin's capacity is 74,000, 69,000 of the WC final were sold tickets! (plus distinguished guests and the press!)

No, all these ^^ stadiums are not expandable! Anyway, Berlin couldn't host the final cause the city has no othe stadium with 50,000 seats!

If Istanbul will get the olympics, the final will go to London, SF in Emirates and Wembley, final in Wembley!!


----------



## gmacruyff

LucianPopa1000 said:


> Gombos, my dear countryman,there's no way in hell uefa is gonna give games to all the british nations(UK,Scotalnd,Ireland,Wales).If they give to one of them(except UK), i think its more than enough.
> Torino will not have any games,has a too small capacity.Milano or Rome will get from Italy.
> Russia will host the world cup,i doubt they will get anything.France will host in 2016 they shouldnt get anything,but considering Platini is French who knows...


Edinburgh doesnt have a large football stadium!


----------



## Gombos

witht Torino you are right. then Milan or Rome.



gmacruyff said:


> Edinburgh doesnt have a large football stadium!


Celtic Park! over 60k.


----------



## RobH

That's in Glasgow


----------



## Gombos

RobH said:


> That's in Glasgow


I corrected. I don't see any problem with whole UK and Ireland like others.



me said:


> *1. England - London (Wembley)
> 2. Scotland - Glasgow (Celtic Park)
> 3. Wales - Cardiff
> 4. Ireland - Dublin (Aviva)
> 5. Sweden - Stockholm (actually Solna, Friends Arena)
> 6. Netherlands - Amsterdam
> 7. Germany - Munich (Allianz Arena)
> 8. Spain - Barcelona or Madrid
> 9. Italy - Milan or Rome
> 10. Greece- Athens
> 11. Turkey - Istanbul (Galatasaray)
> 12. Romania - Bucharest (Arena Nazională)
> 13. Russia - Moscow or St Petersburg New Zenit Stadium (this country never hosted the Euro and having good results, while Portugal already hosted the Euro in 2004 being still a little bit maybe too fresh)
> *


----------



## George_D

Greece will bid


----------



## Leedsrule

GEwinnen said:


> Berlin's capacity is 74,000, 69,000 of the WC final were sold tickets! (plus distinguished guests and the press!)
> 
> No, all these ^^ stadiums are not expandable! Anyway, Berlin couldn't host the final cause the city has no othe stadium with 50,000 seats!
> 
> If Istanbul will get the olympics, the final will go to London, SF in Emirates and Wembley, final in Wembley!!


No, thats not how it will work.

You did as a stadium within a city, one stadium per country, if London win it then all games will be at wembley, nowhere else in england or london. If berlin win it they would only need the olympic stadium.


----------



## LucianPopa1000

There are 17 potential host nations.Out of those 17 almost certainly France and Russia will not get anything,as they should.That leaves us with :
1.Germany-Berlin/Munich
2.Holland-Amsterdan/Rotterdam future?
3.Italy-Rome/Milan
4.Poland-Warsaw
5.Ukraine-Kyiv/Donetk
6.Romania-Bucharest
7.Greece-Athens
8.Turkey-Istanbul
9.Sweden-Stockholm
10.Spain-Madrid/Barcelona
11.Portugal-Lisbon
12.UK-London
13.Ireland-Dublin
14.Scotland-Glasgow
15.Wales-Cardiff
The balkan/baltic/small central Europe countries dont have big/modern enough stadiums or hosted recently(Austria & Switzerland).
Out of those 15 2 countries will not get anything.They could well be Poland and Ukraine.Could be one of the three Ireland,Scotland & Wales.Most likely.And of course there is the possibilty of Turkey not bidding.As for the final/semis host by far the biggest chances go to UK or Spain.They have the biggest,most modern,most legendary stadiums.


----------



## gmacruyff

What about the Ference Puskas stadium in Budapest,Hungary(58,000)?


----------



## Gombos

it needs full demolition and then new construction. there are plans but for when I don't know.


----------



## gmacruyff

other potentials:-

Dinamo Tblisi(Georgia)-54000
Ernst Happel(Austria)-50000
King Baudwin(Belgium)-50000


----------



## PAO13

LucianPopa1000 said:


> *The balkan*/baltic/small central Europe countries dont have big/modern enough stadiums or hosted recently(Austria & Switzerland).


Just to get the facts right, Athens belongs to the Balkans.


----------



## michał_

GEwinnen said:


> San Siro? No, it is too old and outdated, Milan wants to build a new stadium!


San Siro is getting a redevelopment soon and Milan is not building a new stadium. Inter is. And Roma. Maybe. Someday. No-one knows. They've been having visions for years, hiring great architects and ending with nothing...



gmacruyff said:


> What about the Ference Puskas stadium in Budapest,Hungary(58,000)?


New stadium is expected in the next few years (although reportedly as low as 40,000) and I think that would be a very solid bid, especially with Budapest's location and quality of the city (even if hasn't improved much recently).



PAO13 said:


> Just to get the facts right, Athens belongs to the Balkans.


But people usually refer to the less developed countries 
I'd say that there may be a few interesting bids in the Balkans (those non-Greek Balkans) if Albania finaly build their new stadium in Tirana and Serbia get the Marakana revamp going. And if we count Bulgaria, there's also the subject of new central stadium being discussed a lot.


I'm very surprised and even dissapointed that most people here don't include stadia of less than 50,000, assuming that only giants will be given the tournament. It's almost certain that at least one such venue will be included as giving the chance to a smaller/poorer country is the very official reason for allowing up to two stadia of 30k+. Why announce the possibility of exceptions if you don't plan to make one?
And judging by UEFA's policy of expansion to new countries (Istanbul, Moscow, Dublin, Bucharest - for finals; Poland and Ukraine for Euro; lowering requirements for Champions League and Europa League stadia), we should be thinking of that realisticly. This may mean Norway/Denmark, Switzerland, possibly Belgium (fate of Heysel isn't clear, afaik) and Balkans, less probably Belarus which is also getting their new national stadium redone very soon.


I also don't agree that Russia and France would be omitted for the reason that they had a tournament recently. First of all, Russia hosts a FIFA tournament, and UEFA nad FIFA are competition for each other in terms of marketing and targeting. Second, if this is supposed to be 'Euro for Europe', not chosing ANY of the fantastic stadia blooming in Russia would be plain stupid (even if only one as unknown as Rostov to team up with Donetsk). It's only four games per country after all, I don't suppose they'll be concerned with who host what last time. They surely didn't when giving Wembley CL finals for no real reason...


----------



## pobre diablo

michał_;99611684 said:


> But people usually refer to the less developed countries


Greece is catching up fast :troll:


----------



## Almeria

LucianPopa1000 said:


> There are 17 potential host nations.Out of those 17 almost certainly France and Russia will not get anything,as they should.That leaves us with :
> 1.Germany-Berlin/Munich
> 2.Holland-Amsterdan/Rotterdam future?
> 3.Italy-Rome/Milan
> 4.Poland-Warsaw
> 5.Ukraine-Kyiv/Donetk
> 6.Romania-Bucharest
> 7.Greece-Athens
> 8.Turkey-Istanbul
> 9.Sweden-Stockholm
> 10.Spain-Madrid/Barcelona
> 11.Portugal-Lisbon
> 12.UK-London
> 13.Ireland-Dublin
> 14.Scotland-Glasgow
> 15.Wales-Cardiff
> The balkan/baltic/small central Europe countries dont have big/modern enough stadiums or hosted recently(Austria & Switzerland).
> Out of those 15 2 countries will not get anything.They could well be Poland and Ukraine.Could be one of the three Ireland,Scotland & Wales.Most likely.And of course there is the possibilty of Turkey not bidding.As for the final/semis host by far the biggest chances go to UK or Spain.They have the biggest,most modern,most legendary stadiums.




what? 
Scotland? Walles? Iraland? London?


----------



## Almeria

Britons vote in a referendum whether they remain or not in the European Unios, if in 2020 are not in Europan, should be expelled from the UEFA. And because the final at wembley? It may be that they invented football, but their selection and the game of their teams is decadent, their selection is of 3rd category and the English are few hospital and look bad to fans and strangers suede which create superior, also after the failure of London 2012, especially security, are delegitimized to organize anything. Not by having fourth Stadium, which ultimately is a mass of iron and the arcing copied Maracana, must organize the final. The federations should rebel against Platini if it decides that the final is in Paris, as French League is as irrelevant as it may be the Turkish, also have already stolen Turkey Euro 2016. Germany does not have an exclusive large football stadium to accommodate a final, Dortmund is a uncomfortable and unsafe, the Olympic of Berlin, it`s cover posts removes visibility, Munich is too small and plastic façade starts to get Yellow to the Sun. The final must play in Italy or Spain, where the football is pure. In 2020 if England is not in Europe, should be two cities per country, without England. Turkey should be in the African Confederation or the Asian, also should be excluded from the UEFA.


----------



## flierfy

There won't be more than two hosts from the British Isles even though all countries except Northern Ireland fulfil the criteria and will certainly bid.

When picking from the British/Irish bids I wonder if the UEFA could resist the temptation of Wembley and chose Wales and the Millennium Stadium instead. Just for favouring smaller nation as this is virtually their only chance of hosting a few games of a big tournament.


----------



## mopper

As a bulgarian i think of course that they should give a chance to the Balkans. We know that the big countries have excellent stadiums, but they hosted so many tournaments, now it the time for something new. In my opinion the hosts must be Bulgaria, Romania, Greece, Serbia, also Hungary, Czechs, Croatia. There are plans in my country to build new stadium in Sofia for the group stage. Baltic countries and scandinavias deserve too.


----------



## 67868

I only way I could see this being a good idea would be if the 13 host cities were to be from nations that would be too small otherwise to hold a major competition on their own.
Something like Baku, Tbilisi, Yerevan, Nicosia, Skopje, Minsk, Sarajevo etc.


----------



## potiz81

LucianPopa1000 said:


> Could be one of the three Ireland,Scotland & Wales.


If London is in, most possibly Scotland and Wales are out. It s gonna be the around european continent Euro, not the around UK Euro.


----------



## gmacruyff

Bulgaria,definetly needs a brand new stadium(50000) and this UEFA incentive,should accelerate things!


----------



## RobH

---


----------



## Gombos

we have like button now.


----------



## masterpaul

pobre diablo said:


> Greece is catching up fast :troll:



Not sure what you ment but just incase:

Athens is more developed then most of the capitals of the countries mentioned here. Cheers.


----------



## kamadeva

I hope my own country doesn't bid for 2020 and goes for a future bid with one or more of of our hood dwellers. 

I dislike this format, it reeks of greed to me.


----------



## jpgjohnnyg

For the umpteenth time Wales, Scotland and England in footballing terms are as separate as France, Spain and Portugal etc etc so each have every right to bid for matches in the Euros


----------



## LucianPopa1000

jpgjohnnyg said:


> For the umpteenth time Wales, Scotland and England in footballing terms are as separate as France, Spain and Portugal etc etc so each have every right to bid for matches in the Euros


yes but theyre also very close to one and other.UEFA proly wants to spread the tournament as much as possible.No more than 2 of the british islands should get games.3 would be pushing it .


----------



## michał_

mopper said:


> As a bulgarian i think of course that they should give a chance to the Balkans. We know that the big countries have excellent stadiums, but they hosted so many tournaments, now it the time for something new. In my opinion the hosts must be Bulgaria, Romania, Greece, Serbia, also Hungary, *Czechs*, Croatia. There are plans in my country to build new stadium in Sofia for the group stage. Baltic countries and scandinavias deserve too.


Czechs have no intentions of having any stadium over 30,000, so this isn't the tournament for them. And in the long run this is the right way - why build a big stadium for 4 matches (if any)?



kamadeva said:


> I hope my own country doesn't bid for 2020 and goes for a future bid with one or more of of our hood dwellers.
> 
> I dislike this format, it reeks of greed to me.


As far as I know, Bucharest was already announced as candidate  Of course it's not official bidding yet, but I don't think they'd want to miss the chance. If it reeks greed, be sure that people looking for this kind of easy income will be interested


----------



## gmacruyff

LucianPopa1000 said:


> yes but theyre also very close to one and other.UEFA proly wants to spread the tournament as much as possible.No more than 2 of the british islands should get games.3 would be pushing it .


555km London to Glasgow
320km London to Brussels
342km London to Paris

So,according to your logic, Glasgow should be selected before Brussels and Paris!


----------



## LucianPopa1000

gmacruyff said:


> 555km London to Glasgow
> 320km London to Brussels
> 342km London to Paris
> 
> So,according to your logic, Glasgow should be selected before Brussels and Paris!


Its not just the distance.Its pretty much the same ppl(alot of europeans dont even know which is scotland which is ireland,which is northern ireland which is wales ,and no wonder,u all speak English )And Scotland ,Wales arent really countries,they are part of UK.Theyre more like Cataluna in Spain.Theyre like Estonia,Latvia and Lithuania,most ppl dont know well which is whch.Get my drift?And plus theyre in the british islands all of them,unlike Belgium or France which are on the continent.So they're perceived differently.Giving games to all 4 would be blastphemy.But of course in case Ukraine and Poland wont get nothing,who knows.But all 4 would smell corruption and unfair BAAAD.


----------



## DaveyCakes

LucianPopa1000 said:


> Its not just the distance.Its pretty much the same ppl(alot of europeans dont even know which is scotland which is ireland,which is northern ireland which is wales ,and no wonder,u all speak English )And Scotland ,Wales arent really countries,they are part of UK.Theyre more like Cataluna in Spain.Theyre like Estonia,Latvia and Lithuania,most ppl dont know well which is whch.Get my drift?And plus theyre in the british islands all of them,unlike Belgium or France which are on the continent.So they're perceived differently.Giving games to all 4 would be blastphemy.But of course in case Ukraine and Poland wont get nothing,who knows.But all 4 would smell corruption and unfair BAAAD.


Why should peoples' ignorance (whether real or imagined by you) of geography be a factor in deciding host cities?


----------



## LucianPopa1000

DaveyCakes said:


> Why should peoples' ignorance (whether real or imagined by you) of geography be a factor in deciding host cities?


Im not ignorant at all.Actually i won a COUPLE geography contests in highschool.All im saying giving games to all 4 would be wrong.2-3 at most is more than enough.After all except england none of them are big nations in football.Ireland and Wales in particular.So 2-3 out of 4 is more than they ever dreamed/deserved(based on their history in football-times played in tournaments,and clubs performances which are zero).


----------



## DaveyCakes

I didn't say that you are ignorant. I'm sure you're geographical knowledge is top class 

I asked why you think that certain countries shouldn't be considered as hosts because some people don't know the difference between them. If Germany gets to host, then perhaps Austria should automatically be excluded. They all speak German so they're just the same really aren't they??


----------



## gmacruyff

LucianPopa1000 said:


> Its not just the distance.Its pretty much the same ppl(alot of europeans dont even know which is scotland which is ireland,which is northern ireland which is wales ,and no wonder,u all speak English )And Scotland ,Wales arent really countries,they are part of UK.Theyre more like Cataluna in Spain.Theyre like Estonia,Latvia and Lithuania,most ppl dont know well which is whch.Get my drift?And plus theyre in the british islands all of them,unlike Belgium or France which are on the continent.So they're perceived differently.Giving games to all 4 would be blastphemy.But of course in case Ukraine and Poland wont get nothing,who knows.But all 4 would smell corruption and unfair BAAAD.


I think you better,Educate yourself a bit more,because your embarresing your fellow Bucharesters/Romanians!

Scotland(a country the Roman Empire failed to conquer)!
know
Glasgow-First ever international(Scotland v England 1872)
-Greatest attendance for international in Europe(141,000 Sco v Eng)
-Greatest attendance for European match(137,000 Celtic v Leeds 1970)
-Biggest ever "derby" in Europe ( 118,000 Rangers v Celtic 1948)

The same people?-Ha Ha,-listen specky,go away and read a "History of United Kingdom" book,because you dont have a clue what you are talking about!

By the way,Glasgow has 2 airports(Glasgow International+Glasgow Prestwick).
Which puts it well ahead of Bucharest(Henri Coanda).The people of Unirii ,Calea Victoria,Lipscani,Izvor,Decibal,Cotroceni etc,deserve a bit more knowledge from you!


----------



## gmacruyff

LucianPopa1000 said:


> Im not ignorant at all.Actually i won a COUPLE geography contests in highschool.All im saying giving games to all 4 would be wrong.2-3 at most is more than enough.After all except england none of them are big nations in football.Ireland and Wales in particular.So 2-3 out of 4 is more than they ever dreamed/deserved(based on their history in football-times played in tournaments,and clubs performances which are zero).


Club performances zero?

Celtic 1967 European cup,with a team of locals(no foriegners),Celtic 1970 European cup runners up!

1st "Northen" European team to win European cup/Champions league
1st "British" team to win the European cup(1 year before Man utd,10 years before Liverpool)

Rangers and Aberdeen have also won the European cup winners cup(1972+1983).Rangers have played in 3 other European finals!

Everything has changed,since the dismantelling of the 3 foriegner rule and tv money going into England and Spain,the past 10 years(thats why teams from small countries cant compete anymore)-even though Celtic beat Barcelona last year!
Im afraid your a complete ignoramous and i dont want to read your garbadge anymore!


----------



## carlspannoosh

If this whole idea is a one off it should prioritise the countries that don't stand much of a chance in national bids. I would much prefer at least one of the stadiums in Scotland, Ireland or Wales to get chosen ahead of Wembley.


----------



## jpgjohnnyg

gmacruyff 
I wouldnt bother with some of the posters here they are either idiots or trolls. Im hoping for their sake its the latter.
Ill have a go myself for a laugh.
Obviously the EU should only be allowed to have one venue seeing as alll those countries are linked therefore the remaining 12 venues should be from non-EU UEFA countries. Am I on the right wave length yet?


----------



## LucianPopa1000

gmacruyff said:


> I think you better,Educate yourself a bit more,because your embarresing your fellow Bucharesters/Romanians!
> 
> Scotland(a country the Roman Empire failed to conquer)!
> know
> Glasgow-First ever international(Scotland v England 1872)
> -Greatest attendance for international in Europe(141,000 Sco v Eng)
> -Greatest attendance for European match(137,000 Celtic v Leeds 1970)
> -Biggest ever "derby" in Europe ( 118,000 Rangers v Celtic 1948)
> 
> The same people?-Ha Ha,-listen specky,go away and read a "History of United Kingdom" book,because you dont have a clue what you are talking about!
> 
> By the way,Glasgow has 2 airports(Glasgow International+Glasgow Prestwick).
> Which puts it well ahead of Bucharest(Henri Coanda).The people of Unirii ,Calea Victoria,Lipscani,Izvor,Decibal,Cotroceni etc,deserve a bit more knowledge from you!


I was speaking more about Ireland and Wales.I dont care about UK history.
Scotland and Wales are not independent,sovereign states.They dont exist on any world countries list.So u can say all u want.U aint right.
btw Bucharest has also 2 airports(one is 3 miles of the city,but its on the bussiest exit and practically everyone considers it here be in in Bucharest).
And another one will be built in the south of the city(on the outskirts too but for Bucharest).So way ahead MY ASS.What u said there shows u play the game for a long time,that doesnt make u big footballing nation.But i was really talking about Ireland and Wales when i said zero club performances,i think its more than obvious.


----------



## carlspannoosh

If there is an Irish bid I think it will almost certainly be The Aviva Stadium that is put forward.


----------



## KOSTYK

olos88 said:


> I was hoping, that more than 13 stadiums would participate in this tournament. Anyway, the bid process will be very interesting. Here are my propositions:
> 
> 1. Poland - Warsaw (National Stadium)
> 2. Ukraine - Kiev (Olympic Stadium)
> 3. Germany - Munich (Allianz Arena)
> 4. Sweden - Solna (Friends Arena)
> 5. Russia - St. Petersburg (Gazprom Arena)
> 6. Romania - Bucharest (National Stadium)
> 7. Turkey - Istambul (Turk Telecom Arena)
> 8. Italy - Milan (San Siro)
> 9. France - Saint-Denis (Stade de France)
> 10. Spain - Barcelona (Camp Nou)
> 11. Portugal - Lisabon (Estadion da Luz)
> 12. England - London (Wembley) - this stadium should host final
> 13. Greece - Athens (Olympic Stadium)
> or Ireland - Dublin (Aviva Stadium)
> or Azerbaijan - Baku (New Olympic Stadium)


I'm ready to bet that Poland, Ukraine, France will not be hosts of euro 2020 and maybe Russia, beacause a country can't host a EC or WC twice in less than 20 years if I'm not wrong. And UEFA also said that the first options will be the countries who can't host EC alone or with other country. The stadium list in my opinion:

1. Wembley
2. New Atletico Madrid Stadium/Santiago Bernabeu
3. Olympia Stadion in Berlin
4. Oaka Stadium in Athens (because of crisis):lol:
5. Olimpico/San Siro
6. Friends Arena from Sweden
7. Estadio Da Luz Lisbon
8. National Arena Bucharest ( it may be extend to 63.000)
9. Turk Telecom Arena Istanbul (Galatasaray venue)
10. Amsterdam ArenA
11. Millenium Stadium in Cardif/Aviva Stadium ( but most likely Aviva, beacuse U.K will sure have Wembley)
12. Philip II Arena Skopje.
13. A new build stadium in Croatia/Bulgaria/Hungary or New Baku Olympic.


----------



## Leedsrule

KOSTYK said:


> 11. Millenium Stadium in Cardif/Aviva Stadium ( but most likely Aviva, beacuse U.K will sure have Wembley)


That shouldnt matter and if UEFA do mtheir job properly, wont matter. In terms of football, Wales is a different country to England, and you cant discriminate against them bacause their neighbors are holding it too. Its starting to annoy me the amount of people that think that England, wales and scotland cannot have more than 1 venue between them, they are different countries, dont think of them as the united kingdom.


----------



## KOSTYK

Leedsrule said:


> That shouldnt matter and if UEFA do mtheir job properly, wont matter. In terms of football, Wales is a different country to England, and you cant discriminate against them bacause their neighbors are holding it too. Its starting to annoy me the amount of people that think that England, wales and scotland cannot have more than 1 venue between them, they are different countries, dont think of them as the united kingdom.


I know that there are different countries in terms of football, but in my opinion that will be one reason to don't have 2 stadiums from England/Wales/Northern Ireland/Scotland. We will see that in september 2014.


----------



## LucianPopa1000

KOSTYK said:


> I know that there are different countries in terms of football, but in my opinion that will be one reason to don't have 2 stadiums from England/Wales/Northern Ireland/Scotland. We will see that in september 2014.


How can our national stadium be expanded to 63K?
Imo thats bs.Even if they mount narrower seats(which would cost alot of money,the seats ,taking off the older wider ones and put the new ones in their place),which would be unacceptable btw , they dont reach that figure.


----------



## michał_

Leedsrule said:


> That shouldnt matter and if UEFA do mtheir job properly, wont matter. In terms of football, Wales is a different country to England, and you cant discriminate against them bacause their neighbors are holding it too. Its starting to annoy me the amount of people that think that England, wales and scotland cannot have more than 1 venue between them, they are different countries, dont think of them as the united kingdom.


Jesus, why won't you just accept, that it's really, really not about people treating you like one country, but choosing two stadiums just 200km apart (London-Cardiff) doesn't seem anywhere close the idea of 'Euro for Europe', which UEFA is expected to implement. Two stadiums for the UK and Ireland would be a complete maximum. For geographic reasons, not for any discrimination of smaller neighbours of England...

I'd say that anything different than 1 stadium for The Isles (2 at best) would mean UEFA are not doing their job properly - Europe (in UEFA definitions) spreads to Israel and Kazakhstan, it's not really about England/Scotland/Ireland/Wales...


----------



## Alanzeh

13 Cities?
Glasgow - Hampen Park
London - Wembley
Madrid / Barcelona - Santiago Bernabéu / Camp Nou
Lisbon - Estádio da Luz
München - Allianz Arena
St. Dennis - Stade de France
Rotterdam - New Kuip (?)
Rome - Olimpico
Solna - Friends Arena
Bucharest - National Stadium
Warsawa - National Stadium
Kiev - Olympisky
Moscou - Luzhniki


----------



## Leedsrule

michał_;99672410 said:


> Jesus, why won't you just accept, that it's really, really not about people treating you like one country, but choosing two stadiums just 200km apart (London-Cardiff) doesn't seem anywhere close the idea of 'Euro for Europe', which UEFA is expected to implement. Two stadiums for the UK and Ireland would be a complete maximum. For geographic reasons, not for any discrimination of smaller neighbours of England...
> 
> I'd say that anything different than 1 stadium for The Isles (2 at best) would mean UEFA are not doing their job properly - Europe (in UEFA definitions) spreads to Israel and Kazakhstan, it's not really about England/Scotland/Ireland/Wales...


London to Paris is considerably closer than London to Glasgow, so that isnt an excuse. They cant split them up too much because platini has admitted he needs to keep travel costs and times down within groups where possible, I think it was a 2 hour limit. 

If you look at it by 'UEFA definitions' rather than offical countries, the Wales and England should both be allowed to host it in the same way England and Spain could both hold it. If you look at it with the official countries (So the UK as a whole) then tecnically Israel and georgia are not in Europe, so shouldnt get a chance to host. Every different UEFA country in footballing terms should get a right to host regardless of the neighboring country's position. Its unfair that wales would be held back (Even with a great stadium)beause they are right next to england.


----------



## gmacruyff

SMALL COUNTRIES ONLY!

Stop suggesting BIIIIIIIGGGGG countries!(Wembley,Camp Nou,Stad de France etc)


----------



## LucianPopa1000

Im not in favour of all Englands neighbours hosting,but i would really love to see games at Millennium Stadium ,that stadium alone deserves it.I think we are arguing here for nothing really.Its almost a sure than not more than 2 out of Englands 3 neighbours will host.Europe is a huge continent but in the end the big eastern nations(Poland,Ukraine and Russia) will very probably not host anything.France will not get games also.So they might use 3 "british"countries(incl Ireland here,sorry if i offend the irish) because they have to.It all depends really not on footballing history or any of that stuff.
I depends on whether UEFA will go primarily for the biggest stadiums/a very good spread out tournament.Or something between the two.
Germany,Holland,Sweden,Italy,Spain,Portugal,Greece,Turkey,Romania,Austria and England imo will definetely host.The other two will be from the trio of Ireland,Wales and Scotland and the eastern europe countries that just hosted ,or Russia.
There are a couple of countries that might give it a shot(Hungary,Bulgariam,Belgium but they need new stadiums).The balkan and baltic countries have zero chances imo.Could also be another from Norway and Finland,most likely Norway.
UEFA /FIFA stunned everybody in the last few years so really *ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE*


----------



## b5254

Where do you think the final will be held?

I guess Wembley is most likely?


----------



## LucianPopa1000

b5254 said:


> Where do you think the final will be held?
> 
> I guess Wembley is most likely?


Wembley or the city Spain chooses(Barcelona or Madrid).Usually the Spanish choose Madrid,they cant stand Cataluna.And of course what better way to laugh in their face than choose the Bernabeu.I like both Spanish stadiums,think Camp Nou should get it,Bernabeu hosted much more events,it had enough.But most likely they will pick Madrid.


----------



## michał_

Leedsrule said:


> London to Paris is considerably closer than London to Glasgow, so that isnt an excuse. They cant split them up too much because platini has admitted he needs to keep travel costs and times down within groups where possible, *I think it was a 2 hour limit*.


Who ever said anything like that? And how can you keep time within these limits? Unless oyu mean by plane...



Leedsrule said:


> If you look at it by 'UEFA definitions' rather than offical countries, the Wales and England should both be allowed to host it in the same way England and Spain could both hold it. If you look at it with the official countries (So the UK as a whole) then tecnically Israel and georgia are not in Europe, so shouldnt get a chance to host. Every different UEFA country in footballing terms should get a right to host regardless of the neighboring country's position. Its unfair that wales would be held back (Even with a great stadium)beause they are right next to england.


What you seem to be missing is that as much as every country should have the right, only 13 will have the right. All have the right to bid, but not all will be selected. For crying out loud, if London gets the final (for which they declared they are bidding), then Welsh people will have 200km to see the final. That's not really nothing, is it? It's not exactly fair or wise to compare these conditions with England-Spain relations.

And we already know that FA is putting forward Wembley. So all indications say that if the FA is getting a spot, Cardiff won't. Because they'll have the most important games right around the corner, it's really simple. Of course should Wembley not be selected, let's give it to Wales and Scotland, why not? I'd be more than happy to see that, but cannot understand why you try and push a pair like Cardiff and London forward - it's not happening. UEFA said that semis and the final are played at the same stadium, so there's no need for a second stadium near London and we know that London won't be applying for group games, or at least so it has been declared...



LucianPopa1000 said:


> Wembley or the city Spain chooses(Barcelona or Madrid).Usually the Spanish choose Madrid,they cant stand Cataluna.And of course what better way to laugh in their face than choose the Bernabeu.I like both Spanish stadiums,think Camp Nou should get it,Bernabeu hosted much more events,it had enough.But most likely they will pick Madrid.


Perhaps politics won't be involved? We all know that both Bernabeu and Camp Nou are supposed to have a major revamp some time soon. You think that if Camp Nou is done and Bernabeu not, Spain will still stick with Bernabeu? I wouldn't bet on it.
But would have a laugh if we saw Atletico and Valencia's stadiums in Spain's bid 

*
Btw, we did a map like this to show the stadiums that are either existing or have been announced so far. Of course this isn't to show that all these stadiums have a chance (look at London, no stadium apart from Wembley will probably matter), but it's just to show all venues that will most probably comply to UEFA's expectations.* Sorry to Belgium, but we had no data and last time we heard about Heysel, it was going to be dmeolished...


----------



## Gombos

gmacruyff said:


> Small countries with Excellent stadia(over 40,000):-
> 
> Scotland-3 in Glasgow-(Hampden,Ibrox,Celtic park)
> Holland-1 in Amsterdam(Ajax arena)
> Austria-1 in Vienna(Ernst Happel)
> Belgium-1 in Brussels(King Baudwin)
> Portugal-2 in Oporto(Porto) and Lisbon(Benfica)
> Ireland-1 in Dublin(Croke park)
> Wales-1 in Cardiff(Millenium stadium)
> Sweden-1 in Stockholm
> Macedonia-1 in Skopje
> Greece-1 in Athens(Olympic stadium)
> Denmark-1 in Copenhagen
> Romania-1 in Bucharest
> 
> Plenty to choose from in small countries!


if you added that from Skopje I suggest you also adding *Cluj Arena* the 2nd Elite from Romania. same capacities and it's 100% new. but yet again both are under 40k and no country will host with more than 1. 










also, Brussels with King Baudouin Stadium might fail because it needs renovation.



michał_;99636378 said:


> As far as I know, Bucharest was already announced as candidate  Of course it's not official bidding yet, but I don't think they'd want to miss the chance.


it's official, they even prepared the files. somehow many of us would have wanted it alone or in a two bid alongside a neighbour but maybe it's better now than in future. a future bid against a country with big resources like Turkey would be very difficult for the majority. I wonder if Turkey will candidate for the 2024.



gmacruyff said:


> I think you better,Educate yourself a bit more,because your embarresing your fellow Bucharesters/Romanians!


we don't agree with him. Scotland and Wales have identity. what the people from there should do? should they always go to London for example when England is hosting it? why can't their teams play on own land? about Ireland, it's not part of the UK.

@ Lucian Popa

Scotland is no English land! and the Euro was never organized as United Kingdom tournament.



gmacruyff said:


> I see,so now youve changed from Scotland,Ireland and Wales,to just Ireland and Wales on the zero club performance radar.


Ireland holds national team performances. but as I said Ireland is not part of the Kingdom. Wales unfortunately might fail in front of Ireland because of its minor performances, both clubs and NT. though we don't know, I just UEFA doesn't think like him. Glasgow deserves as much as London and can host both.



gmacruyff said:


> To finish Glasgow is the only city in Europe to hold 3 stadiums with 50,000+ capacity!
> 
> Hampden(National team)-52000
> Ibrox(Rangers) -51000
> Celtic Park(Celtic) -61000


I forgot of Hampden but Ibrox can't bid. It's not such a nice stadium.



LucianPopa1000 said:


> How can our national stadium be expanded to 63K?
> Imo thats bs.


it's not, it was projected this way. see the areas behind.



parcdesprinces said:


> according to Platini himself, that's what he had in mind when he suggested this concept for Euro 2020 (i.e. in order to permit small countries to host such an event).





gmacruyff said:


> SMALL COUNTRIES ONLY!
> 
> Stop suggesting BIIIIIIIGGGGG countries!(Wembley,Camp Nou,Stad de France etc)


first, because it's anniversary edition. secondly he said because it would allow to 1/3 of Europe to bid though I'm not sure many small countries will host, except Ireland and maybe Scotland. I'm reading the international online press and I'm telling you there aren't many (September 2013: Formal confirmation of their bid by the candidates).

and you Cruyff my friend, don't be funny, Spain will get a city same as England. Germany will also be there. there are only 8 big countries in Europe: Russia, Germany, France, England, Italy, Spain, Ukraine and Poland. then the 9th one Romania is really not that big, it's medium. do you see only 13 really small nations hosting? because I really don't.

*and as I've really said, Platini said this it's an anniversary edition format! can this really be without the big guns?* without at least some of them? especially when many small countries don't bid.


----------



## KOSTYK

del


----------



## KOSTYK

LucianPopa1000 said:


> How can our national stadium be expanded to 63K?
> Imo thats bs.Even if they mount narrower seats(which would cost alot of money,the seats ,taking off the older wider ones and put the new ones in their place),which would be unacceptable btw , they dont reach that figure.


They can put at least 4-5 rows there. And the potential raise at 63.000 wasn't my invention, it was said UEFA at the EL final.


national_arena_74251800 by KOSTYK2012, on Flickr


----------



## Leedsrule

michał_;99677753 said:


> Who ever said anything like that? And how can you keep time within these limits? Unless oyu mean by plane...


Yes, by plane, im sure they mentioned about that in the article



> What you seem to be missing is that as much as every country should have the right, only 13 will have the right. All have the right to bid, but not all will be selected. For crying out loud, if London gets the final (for which they declared they are bidding), then Welsh people will have 200km to see the final. That's not really nothing, is it? It's not exactly fair or wise to compare these conditions with England-Spain relations.


You are kind of arguing the same point as me here, i'm saying more than 1 UK nation could and should be chosen, and I think youre backing me up by saying the welsh still need to travel far to wembley? But even so they will be travelling less of a distance than people from Newcastle would be to watch games in London, and England is quite a small sized country.



> And we already know that FA is putting forward Wembley. So all indications say that if the FA is getting a spot, Cardiff won't. Because they'll have the most important games right around the corner, it's really simple.


Youve completely contradicted yourself from the last paragraph where you said 200km is not exactly nothing...



> Of course should Wembley not be selected, let's give it to Wales and Scotland, why not? I'd be more than happy to see that, but cannot understand why you try and push a pair like Cardiff and London forward - it's not happening. UEFA said that semis and the final are played at the same stadium, so there's no need for a second stadium near London and we know that London won't be applying for group games, or at least so it has been declared...


Wales isnt that close to London, and like I said Paris to london is very close, but no-one will mention that?! They would not apply togetyher, maybe the millenium will apply for group stages and finals, but the Welsh FA is seperate to the english FA, so they can both submit a bid as different countriees, which they are.

I dont think spain would consider bidding with Valencia, but I can see them bidding with the atletico madrid stadium. I think that will become the new proper national stadium, even if it is smaller than the bernabau, they will use it for international games.


----------



## LucianPopa1000

Leedsrule said:


> London to Paris is considerably closer than London to Glasgow, so that isnt an excuse. They cant split them up too much because platini has admitted he needs to keep travel costs and times down within groups where possible, I think it was a 2 hour limit.
> 
> If you look at it by 'UEFA definitions' rather than offical countries, the Wales and England should both be allowed to host it in the same way England and Spain could both hold it. If you look at it with the official countries (So the UK as a whole) then tecnically Israel and georgia are not in Europe, so shouldnt get a chance to host. Every different UEFA country in footballing terms should get a right to host regardless of the neighboring country's position. Its unfair that wales would be held back (Even with a great stadium)beause they are right next to england.


Its not about the distance.But scots,welsh are 99% english.So its pretty much the same ppl.I know u brits,scots,werlsh dont agree but NOT ALL OF YOU WILL GET GAMES.GET OVER IT.3 countries in Uk isnt fair for the rest of europe.Not to mention theyre very close to one another.Its really getting old this.U wont all get games,u really have to be realists.


----------



## LucianPopa1000

KOSTYK said:


> They can put at least 4-5 rows there. And the potential raise at 63.000 wasn't my invention, it was said UEFA at the EL final.
> 
> 
> national_arena_74251800 by KOSTYK2012, on Flickr


UEFA are as,always full of BS.U cannot add more rows,because at the corners the stadium is already extremely close and those seats would have a restricted view.U cannot add seats nowhere,this is the final capacity.That 63k figure is proly for concerts.Dont believe everything you read.


----------



## bongo-anders

Whaaat are the Welsh people 99 % English

Thats like saying that Austria is 99 % German, you are out on deep water.


----------



## b5254

michał_;99677753 said:


> Perhaps politics won't be involved? We all know that both Bernabeu and Camp Nou are supposed to have a major revamp some time soon. You think that if Camp Nou is done and Bernabeu not, Spain will still stick with Bernabeu? I wouldn't bet on it.
> But would have a laugh if we saw Atletico and Valencia's stadiums in Spain's bid


Politics is always involved when it comes to Platini and Blatter. :|


----------



## Leedsrule

LucianPopa1000 said:


> Its not about the distance.But scots,welsh are 99% english.So its pretty much the same ppl.I know u brits,scots,werlsh dont agree but NOT ALL OF YOU WILL GET GAMES.GET OVER IT.3 countries in Uk isnt fair for the rest of europe.Not to mention theyre very close to one another.Its really getting old this.U wont all get games,u really have to be realists.


You are crazy if you think that. One of the most stupid posts on this forum ive ever seen. 
Im not saying england, scotland and wales will all get games but WE ARE NOT THE SAME. Just becase we talk the same language dosent mean we are the same. Its like saying spaniards and argentinans are 'basicly the same'. 
We are close to eachother yes, but like i said london is closer to Paris and Amsterdam than scotland.


----------



## LucianPopa1000

Leedsrule said:


> You are crazy if you think that. One of the most stupid posts on this forum ive ever seen.
> Im not saying england, scotland and wales will all get games but WE ARE NOT THE SAME. Just becase we talk the same language dosent mean we are the same. Its like saying spaniards and argentinans are 'basicly the same'.
> We are close to eachother yes, but like i said london is closer to Paris and Amsterdam than scotland.


It really doesnt matter what I/ u believe.UEFA is greedy and will go for the nouveau riche in other parts in Europe,as they should.Itsnt not only about distance between London and Paris.Its about spreading the tournament alot.And 4 out of 13 host countries to be "british" is too much .Its really worthless.My arguments may not be the best,but aint getting games in 4 cities.I bet anything u want.Stop daydreaming..


----------



## LucianPopa1000

Let us move on from this "british countries" topic,cause they dont want to understand.Its really not helping anyone,and no matter how much we argue they still wont get games in all 4 .Its just so obvious its not worth debating anymore.Let us move on.


----------



## carlspannoosh

Silly argument. I can't see anyone arguing that all 4 of the bids discussed should be chosen. I would say two is realistic and at least one is likely. It is a matter of whether it is one or two and if it is two which of those get chosen. Nothing to get so worked up about


----------



## Leedsrule

LucianPopa1000 said:


> It really doesnt matter what I/ u believe.UEFA is greedy and will go for the nouveau riche in other parts in Europe,as they should.Itsnt not only about distance between London and Paris.Its about spreading the tournament alot.And 4 out of 13 host countries to be "british" is too much .Its really worthless.My arguments may not be the best,but aint getting games in 4 cities.I bet anything u want.Stop daydreaming..


I NEVER SAID IT WILL OR SHOULD BE HELD IN ALL 4!!!

And its not like Windor park would ever hold it, but I said its not unlikely that 2 UK nations will be chosen, and prehaps 2 UK nations should be chosen. And Remember Ireland isnt a UK country. FFS.


----------



## NastyFilthy

This would be the most optimal Euro2020 according to me:
1. Stockholm
2. copenhagen
3. London
4. Dublin or glasgow
5. Madrid
6. Moscow
7. Amsterdam/Rotterdam
8. Athens
9. München
10. Italy- somewhere
11. Zagreb
12. Bucharest
13. hungary/czech rep. 
BIG NO: France, Austria,Switzerland,Turkey, Finland, Serbia and Belgium


----------



## gmacruyff

LucianPopa1000 said:


> Its not about the distance.But scots,welsh are 99% english.So its pretty much the same ppl.I know u brits,scots,werlsh dont agree but NOT ALL OF YOU WILL GET GAMES.GET OVER IT.3 countries in Uk isnt fair for the rest of europe.Not to mention theyre very close to one another.Its really getting old this.U wont all get games,u really have to be realists.


You are the most ridiculous contibutor to any forum i have ever seen in my life!

p.s All Romanians are actually Hungarian!


----------



## LucianPopa1000

gmacruyff said:


> You are the most ridiculous contibutor to any forum i have ever seen in my life!
> 
> p.s All Romanians are actually Hungarian!


I said lets drop it.So drop it.And btw romanians and hungarians are more different than english are from germans.Now lets stop this nonsense.I came with otehr arguments,not only the population-language thing, but u only want to talk about that.Move on,this is getting sadhno:


----------



## gmacruyff

LucianPopa1000 said:


> I said lets drop it.So drop it.And btw romanians and hungarians are more different than english are from germans.Now lets stop this nonsense.I came with otehr arguments,not only the population-language thing, but u only want to talk about that.Move on,this is getting sadhno:


STOP FUCKING SAYING "THE SCOTS AND WELSH ARE 99% ENGLISH" THEN!

GET THE MESSAGE!:bash:


----------



## carlspannoosh

:lol: I am surprised that LucianPopa1000 doesn't expect angry responses to some of the comments he makes.


----------



## LucianPopa1000

gmacruyff said:


> STOP FUCKING SAYING "THE SCOTS AND WELSH ARE 99% ENGLISH" THEN!
> 
> GET THE MESSAGE!:bash:


maybe for u guys that live there,but for most europeans scotland or wales are regions within UK.And considering their part of UK,its normal that ppl see them as english.Its one country(UK).Now lets change the subject.If u want to furter continue this silly argument,send a private message.Let us not tuin this thread.


----------



## Rev Stickleback

LucianPopa1000 said:


> maybe for u guys that live there,but for most europeans scotland or wales are regions within UK.And considering their part of UK,its normal that ppl see them as english.Its one country(UK).Now lets change the subject.If u want to furter continue this silly argument,send a private message.Let us not tuin this thread.


It's more a question of terminology, as in some places people equate English and British as being the same thing, just as people used to consider Russia and the Soviet Union as the same thing, even though both are wrong.


You overall point stands though (if I have it right), as I do believe people would think a bid with four host cities in the British Isles would be too "British centric", with the countries far closer tied than any others in Europe.

I think potentially there could be two hosts within the British Isles, but I can't see more than that being popular with the other nations.


----------



## bongo-anders

London and Glasgow/Dublin makes sense to me, then we can always discuss stadiums later.:lol:


----------



## Gombos

:lol: Lucian, if people from there are telling you this! :nuts: btw, did you ever hear of the Scottish invasions of England or of the English invasions of Scotland? though now they are friends. the Scots have kilts.


----------



## michał_

Leedsrule said:


> Yes, by plane, im sure they mentioned about that in the article


I don't know what 'the article' you mean, because UEFA didn't say it in their official guidelines so I missed that. Just like I missed the 'two-terminal' or 'two-airport' rule, which in fact does not exist, or not at this moment at least.



Leedsrule said:


> You are kind of arguing the same point as me here, i'm saying more than 1 UK nation could and should be chosen, and I think youre backing me up by saying the welsh still need to travel far to wembley? But even so they will be travelling less of a distance than people from Newcastle would be to watch games in London, and England is quite a small sized country.
> [...]
> Youve completely contradicted yourself from the last paragraph where you said 200km is not exactly nothing...


Actually you must have misunderstood me, sorry for not being clear, sometimes I don't get thing across in English. I meant that 'having the final at Wembley, just 200km away, is not exactly nothing' for the people of Cardiff who have only 200km to see the final even if Millennium Stadium wasn't selected. 200km is actually nothing in terms of this Euro. This was my point.



Leedsrule said:


> Wales isnt that close to London, and like I said Paris to london is very close, *but no-one will mention that*?! They would not apply togetyher, maybe the millenium will apply for group stages and finals, but the Welsh FA is seperate to the english FA, so they can both submit a bid as different countriees, which they are.


I think you did, some five times  Except we weren't talking about Paris but about nations of the UK, right? It's not said that FFF will put Stade de France forward, they might theoretically do great with Marseille or Lyon. If that's of any comfort for you, I don't think that Paris and London should be getting games at the same time, but contrary to the London-Cardiff duo I can see that happening, because of $$$ and politics. After all, Paris, London, Istanbul and Moscow are the most massive metropolies in Europe, I bet UEFA will find some excuse to fit Paris and London together if they want...



Leedsrule said:


> I dont think spain would consider bidding with Valencia, but I can see them bidding with the atletico madrid stadium. I think *that will become the new proper national stadium*, even if it is smaller than the bernabau, they will use it for international games.


Is there any info on that or is it just intuition? I haven't seen any, so just asking.



b5254 said:


> Politics is always involved when it comes to Platini and Blatter. :|


true that, though I was thinking of politics in the pre-UEFA selection, before they submit the bid to monsieur Platini  (yes, I'm extremely naive to think this doesn't happen on national level...)


----------



## gmacruyff

Why are people talking about FRENCH stadiums,considering 2016 is in France!

You think UEFA want games to be played in France,in 2016 AND 2020?


----------



## Leedsrule

michał_;99719407 said:


> Actually you must have misunderstood me, sorry for not being clear, sometimes I don't get thing across in English. I meant that 'having the final at Wembley, just 200km away, is not exactly nothing' for the people of Cardiff who have only 200km to see the final even if Millennium Stadium wasn't selected. 200km is actually nothing in terms of this Euro. This was my point.


Ok, fair enough, and its a good point but in he same way we can travel to Paris on the train in the same amout of time as reaching wales, so if you look at it the other way round, the people of frasnce could get to us as easily as the welsh. 



> It's not said that FFF will put Stade de France forward, they might theoretically do great with Marseille or Lyon. If that's of any comfort for you, I don't think that Paris and London should be getting games at the same time, but contrary to the London-Cardiff duo I can see that happening, because of $$$ and politics. After all, Paris, London, Istanbul and Moscow are the most massive metropolies in Europe, I bet UEFA will find some excuse to fit Paris and London together if they want...


I cant see the FFF bidding with anything except the stade de france. Theyll be lucky to hold anything, so will have to take advantage of their biggest city imo.



> Is there any info on that or is it just intuition? I haven't seen any, so just asking.


Im sure it will. I think I did read it somewhere spain dont really have a national stadium, so this will be it i reckon.




gmacruyff said:


> Why are people talking about FRENCH stadiums,considering 2016 is in France!
> 
> You think UEFA want games to be played in France,in 2016 AND 2020?


Because Blatter is in charge, he will certainly allow france to bid


----------



## flierfy

Leedsrule said:


> Because Blatter is in charge, he will certainly allow france to bid


I don't think that Blatter has much influence on this matter.


----------



## Xtreminal

My choice:

1. Baku, Azerbaijan (Olympic Stadium)
2. Warsaw, Poland (Stadion Narodowy)
3. Solna, Sweden (Friends Arena)
4. Dublin, Ireland (Aviva Stadium)
5. Donetsk, Ukraine (Donbass Arena)
6. Braga, Portugal (Estádio Municipal de Braga)
7. Istanbul, Turkey (Atatürk Olimpiyat Stadium)
8. Athens, Greece (Athens Olympic Stadium)
9. Milan, Italy (San Siro)
10. Porto, Portugal (Estádio do Dragão)
11. Amsterdam, Netherlands (Amsterdam ArenA)
12. Glasgow, Scotland (Celtic Park)
13. Cardiff, Wales (Millenium Stadium)

Big nations had enough chances, time to destruct this oligopoly and bring football to other nations.


----------



## LucianPopa1000

Xtreminal said:


> My choice:
> 
> 1. Baku, Azerbaijan (Olympic Stadium)
> 2. Warsaw, Poland (Stadion Narodowy)
> 3. Solna, Sweden (Friends Arena)
> 4. Dublin, Ireland (Aviva Stadium)
> 5. Donetsk, Ukraine (Donbass Arena)
> 6. Braga, Portugal (Estádio Municipal de Braga)
> 7. Istanbul, Turkey (Atatürk Olimpiyat Stadium)
> 8. Athens, Greece (Athens Olympic Stadium)
> 9. Milan, Italy (San Siro)
> 10. Porto, Portugal (Estádio do Dragão)
> 11. Amsterdam, Netherlands (Amsterdam ArenA)
> 12. Glasgow, Scotland (Celtic Park)
> 13. Cardiff, Wales (Millenium Stadium)
> 
> Big nations had enough chances, time to destruct this oligopoly and bring football to other nations.


Too many olympic stadiums ,with crappy views.And braga is far to small.All stadiums need to be 50K minimum.And Ukraine/Poland most likely will not get any games.They hosted last year.Same goes for France,Russia who will host .
And WTF no Spain,England and Germany?:nuts: Thats impossible.


----------



## michał_

LucianPopa1000 said:


> Too many olympic stadiums ,with crappy views.And braga is far to small.All stadiums need to be 50K minimum.And Ukraine/Poland most likely will not get any games.They hosted last year.Same goes for France,Russia who will host .
> And WTF no Spain,England and Germany?:nuts: Thats impossible.


He said HIS choice, not UEFA's. Mind that.
Though Braga clearly cannot apply if there are three stadia of over 50,000 in Portugal.

BTW:



> *Euro 2020: Belgium joining forces, Brussels to get new national stadium?
> 
> Current Heysel is most likely to disappear, but Belgian FA wants to build a new national arena. Under one condition – Belgium needs Anderlecht to become the main tenant and… investor. Sporza.be reports.*
> 
> When we presented potential venues for Euro 2020 on facebook, Belgium was one giant blank spot. No stadium in the country is likely to be sufficient. Current Heysel does meet the 50,000 capacity criteria, but is more likely to be demolished and replaced by other functions than redeveloped.
> 
> Now it seems there is a new plan, however, with Belgian FA (KBVB) announcing they want to fight for the 4 games of Euro 2020 that UEFA will give out to 13 cities across Europe. A new stadium would be built (possibly to replace Heysel?), but the plan would be viable only if Anderlecht take part.
> 
> “Let’s be honest, the plan stands a chance only with the stadium having a team to play there on regular basis”, says Steven Martens, CEO of KBVB. He adds that in the scheme Anderlecht would play the role of ‘main investor’.
> 
> This is when it starts getting tricky – Anderlecht are still working on their own new stadium, the redeveloped Constant Vanden Stock. Should they not accept the offer of KBVB, Belgium’s only stadium to meet the minimum demand of UEFA (of 30,000+, though only two stadia of that size may be selected) would be Vanden Stock. But with so many great venues to chose from around Benelux, that seems an unlikely selection.
> 
> Worth mentioning, Belgium also prepared initial plans for a massive 80,000-seater at Heysel, when they submitted their bid for 2018 World Cup games along with Netherlands. Here's how it looked:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://stadiumdb.com/news/2013/01/e...g_forces_brussels_to_get_new_national_stadium


----------



## Leedsrule

michał_;99741767 said:


> Though Braga clearly cannot apply if there are three stadia of over 50,000 in Portugal.


I think the bigger issue is that he picked 2 stadiums from portugal. Should be only 1 per country.


----------



## LucianPopa1000

If Belgium builds a new stadium then so long wales/scotland or ireland.I have this feeling.


----------



## Leedsrule

LucianPopa1000 said:


> If Belgium builds a new stadium then so long wales/scotland or ireland.I have this feeling.


No way will they drop Ireland. Tbh theyd drop England or Spain before Ireland. Ireland is a small country, not capable of holding a euro's along, but with a top stadium. Perfect for the Euro 2020.


----------



## LucianPopa1000

Leedsrule said:


> No way will they drop Ireland. Tbh theyd drop England or Spain before Ireland. Ireland is a small country, not capable of holding a euro's along, but with a top stadium. Perfect for the Euro 2020.


Yeah but England and Spain are the big favourites to host the final and semis.And honestly i dont think UEFA will drop England or Spain never.Especially considering another big nation,France will not get games.Spain and England are the last countries they would not give games to.And rightfully so.They have the biggest /most modern /legendary stadiums.But who knows what that crazy Platini might do...


----------



## el palmesano

Seville has a really big stadium that is underused...

If Spain has to choise one I think that it must be de one


----------



## Leedsrule

LucianPopa1000 said:


> Yeah but England and Spain are the big favourites to host the final and semis.And honestly i dont think UEFA will drop England or Spain never.Especially considering another big nation,France will not get games.Spain and England are the last countries they would not give games to.And rightfully so.They have the biggest /most modern /legendary stadiums.But who knows what that crazy Platini might do...


The whole idea is to give it to nthe small countries who couldnt host it alone. Ireland is a pefect example of this, as are Macedonia, Romania, Greece, Sweden and Wales are pefect exaples of this. All have 1 decent sized stadium but the country wouldnt be able to hold a whole tournament alone in future. Bearing this in mind, i think it is very likely those 6 will hold it alongside stadiums in 7 larger countries. 

Spain probably wont be left out, but they are the sort of country who could hold a future tourbnament alone, so priority defiantely should, and surely will go to the smaller countries less capable of holding a tournament alone. And lets face it spain dosent have the most appealing stadiums from UEFA's point of view- lots of fans like the bernabau and camp nou but both are built with size as a priority, not comfort, and UEFA like comfort.

I would be happy if England was left out with a view to holding a future tournament alone which would be a hundred times better than holding a semis and final now. If they are going to do this properly, I say they should pick
1. Aviva stadium- Ireland
2. Phillip II stadium- Macedonia
3. Millenium Stadium- Wales
4. Hamden Park- Scotland
5. Friends Arena- Sweden
6. National Stadium- Romania
7. Stade de Suisse/ St Jacob Park- Switzerland
8. Olympic Stadium- Greece
9. New Belgium Stadium- Belgium
10. Amsterdam Arena- Holland
11. Parken- Denmark
12. New or refurbished stadium in Czech rep. or East Europe somewhere.
13. Olympic Stadium- Turkey, i still think this would be the best for the finals.

Avoids spain and Portugal which dosent spread it out much but portugal held it recently and spain is a big country. Switzerland held it recently but not a final, so prehaps deserve a bit more, and this may not be spread out geographicly but it uses mostly small countries, not big countries who can bid for a whole tournament on their own.




el palmesano said:


> Seville has a really big stadium that is underused...
> 
> If Spain has to choise one I think that it must be de one


Good call for the group stages, but it has an athletics track :/


----------



## LucianPopa1000

I think u guys dont understand that UEFA doesnt care about the small nations.That is just another excuse imo.They want the biggest stadiums ,good spread tournament comes second,small countries come third.They will still go for the big boys.And considering France wont proly host,and Germany hosted pretty recently the world cup(and spain and england havent hosted major tournaments in a while),plus they have the best/biggest stadiums,i find it very ,and i mean very hard to believe they will be left out.And really now, I think the players would prefer also to play on stadiums like Wembley or Camp Nou ahead of National arena in Bucharest or Aviva or TTA .
I do agree that Spain or England will want to host big tournaments on themselves,not just 3 games.But that decision will go to FIFA maybe if we're talking world cup)or UEFA.I think the next Euro host will definetely be a big country as the last 2 tournaments were in Austria,Switzerland,Poland and Ukraine.
We must accept that UEFA wants big money from this experiment.Couple that with them dont caring about small nations and u get the picture.Even if i come from a smaller footballing nation,i still want to see the biggest nations host.It takes away from that feeling this is an experiment.And of course i love the big legendary stadiums:lol:


----------



## Leedsrule

Do you really think if UEFA cared about the players they would have picked this style of tournament?? UEFA dont care about the players, they care about money. 

Yes, they will get more money with a bigger stadium but im not sure they will be able to justify giving lots of big nations it and leaving out small nations. I wont talk for spain, but i'd rather Greece, Romania, Sweden, Scotland, Ireland, Macedonia and Wales hold it before England.



> I think the next Euro host will definetely be a big country as the last 2 tournaments were in Austria,Switzerland,Poland and Ukraine.


It is, its in France next. Thats a big country.


----------



## flierfy

Leedsrule said:


> Do you really think if UEFA cared about the players they would have picked this style of tournament?? UEFA dont care about the players, they care about money.


Whether the UEFA does or does not care about the players cannot be judged by the nature of the 2020 Euros. The travelling involved won't be that much. No team will travel from Dublin to Istanbul and back again within a few days. It is more likely that two adjacent venues will be grouped together and host one group.

The UEFA does certainly care about money. But that barely influenced their selection of venues in the past. Despite the power which the UEFA certainly has to demand bigger grounds it still settles for 30'000 seater for group stage matches. The FIFA is much more demanding on that matter.


----------



## ayanamikun

i remind you that the stadium in Fyrom has 33k capacity and so does the one Switzerland and some more you have posted, and so they are out.


----------



## Leedsrule

ayanamikun said:


> i remind you that the stadium in Fyrom has 33k capacity and so does the one Switzerland and some more you have posted, and so they are out.


If you acctualy read the requirents before posting you would realise up to 2 stadiums can have a capacity over 30k but under 50k.


----------



## flierfy

Leedsrule said:


> If you acctualy read the requirents before posting you would realise up to 2 stadiums can have a capacity over 30k but under 50k.


But this is exactly the point. You can add only two venue below the 50'000 mark to the list. You, however, have three of that kind on yours.


----------



## Leedsrule

Oh, he didnt amke that clear. i thought Parken was bigger than it acctually is, so drop the suisse stadium and use Da Luz in Portugal instead


----------



## LucianPopa1000

UEFA should stick to 50k + stadiums.Wouldnt be fair for some teams to play on 70-90k seater stadiums and others on 30k puny seaters.


----------



## Leedsrule

LucianPopa1000 said:


> UEFA should stick to 50k + stadiums.Wouldnt be fair for some teams to play on 70-90k seater stadiums and others on 30k puny seaters.


Wh wouldnt that be fair?


----------



## LucianPopa1000

Leedsrule said:


> Wh wouldnt that be fair?


ticket allocation would be twice as small:nuts:


----------



## Leedsrule

Well thewre are 30k and 70k capacity stadiums at every euro's, no-one complains :/


----------



## LucianPopa1000

Leedsrule said:


> Well thewre are 30k and 70k capacity stadiums at every euro's, no-one complains :/


yes but this is a different situation.Because usually the big stadiums in euros host the later stages,final,opening game and the hosts games.Now you'll have very large stadiums in western europe and smaller in othe parts.So the teams that will play in Turkey Greece and Romania wont like that others will be playing in larger stadiums in UK,Spain or Portugal.Different thing now.And if they are greedy,be greedy all the way,dont ruin the avg attendance with some 30k in central europe/balkans.


----------



## Bannor

Allright, Aviva can work well I suppose, and I see that they have announced it as an option already.


----------



## DaveyCakes

It will definitely be the Aviva if Dublin bids (an I'm sure they will). The FAI owns 50% of it and has big loans to pay back.....they're not going to pay the GAA to host Euro 2020 matches.


----------



## flierfy

KingNick said:


> This is where it gets pathetic. Those UEFA ***** wouldn't even accept the most likely best new stadium to host the finals, because it is too small with its 68.000 seats. Where should we place all our VIP wankers who don't give a **** about football anyway?
> 
> Love football, hate UEFA!


If you really loved football then you wouldn't write such a ludicrous rant. The requirement of 70'000 seats by the UEFA is reasonable. In the interest of proper fans the stadium for the last three matches can actually not be big enough, because it is them who would miss out when smaller ground were allowed. Therefore it is in the best interest of all football fans that the stadium in Fröttmaning is not considered for the last three matches.


----------



## KingNick

Euros and true fan love doesn't match. Period.


----------



## LucianPopa1000

I think for the final you need a very large stadium.68k seems kinda small considering u could have 90k wembley or 85k bernabeu.Its a considerable difference.The 70k figure should be the minimum allowed,although some exceptions for beauties like allianz, da luz could be done,at least from time to time.70k is also the minimum cap required for world cup final or super bowl.


----------



## 1772

flierfy said:


> If you really loved football then you wouldn't write such a ludicrous rant. The requirement of 70'000 seats by the UEFA is reasonable. In the interest of proper fans the stadium for the last three matches can actually not be big enough, because it is them who would miss out when smaller ground were allowed. Therefore it is in the best interest of all football fans that the stadium in Fröttmaning is not considered for the last three matches.


Well if that is the case than all Euros should be in Germany and all World Cups should be in the US. 
If the objective is to get as many fans as possible into the stadiums.


----------



## copa olympic

Bidding process timeline:



> The timeline for the bidding process has been approved by UEFA's Executive Committee:
> 
> • 28 March 2013: Approval of the bidding requirements and bid regulations
> • April 2013: Publication of the bid requirements and launch of the bidding phase
> • September 2013: Formal confirmation of their bid by the candidates
> • April/May 2014: Submission of bid dossiers and start of the evaluation phase
> • *September 2014: Appointment of the host cities by the UEFA Executive Committee*
> 
> UEFA


----------



## DaveyCakes

Ukraine will bid:

http://www.ffu.org.ua/ukr/ffu/about/ffu_news/11110/ (in Ukrainian)

"One or two cities will bid"


----------



## flierfy

1772 said:


> Well if that is the case than all Euros should be in Germany and all World Cups should be in the US.
> If the objective is to get as many fans as possible into the stadiums.


No, there are plenty of big ground and of 70'000+ seater for that matter all over the world. No need to stick with only two host countries.


----------



## RMB2007

> Amsterdam Arena chief executive Henk Markerink has confirmed that the venue, which provides a permanent home for Dutch football champions Ajax, will bid for the right to host matches at the 2020 UEFA European Championships here today, though he does admit that Rotterdam may offer some competition.


http://www.insidethegames.biz/sport...-confirms-intention-to-host-euro-2020-matches


----------



## OKT23

70000 for minimum seats is ridiculous, what is the point to open the bids of all the countries of Europe but only a few can? Portugal have two great stadiums, Dragao and Luz, its a shame they can´t bid.


----------



## www.sercan.de

i think 70k is just for the Final Fours


----------



## Leedsrule

yeah, its only 70k+ for the finals and thats fair enough. we shouldnt have a 60k capacity stadium holding a europe wide euro's (most likely wth much bigger stadiums in early rounds).


----------



## Turkiiish

Turkey is bidding for UEFA EURO 2024 !


----------



## 1772

flierfy said:


> No, there are plenty of big ground and of 70'000+ seater for that matter all over the world. No need to stick with only two host countries.


Which country in the world can get anywhere near the capacity of the US? 

Which country in Europe can get anywhere near the capacity of Germany?


----------



## LucianPopa1000

1772 said:


> Which country in the world can get anywhere near the capacity of the US?
> 
> Which country in Europe can get anywhere near the capacity of Germany?


I think Spain can get bigger attendance than 06 Germany.Imagine they have 100k camp nou,85k bernbabeu,new valencia,atletico both 73-75k.They would easily beat Germany's record.


----------



## flierfy

1772 said:


> Which country in the world can get anywhere near the capacity of the US?
> 
> Which country in Europe can get anywhere near the capacity of Germany?


England and Italy certainly can. Brazil and China probably too.


----------



## gmacruyff

LucianPopa1000 said:


> I think Spain can get bigger attendance than 06 Germany.Imagine they have 100k camp nou,85k bernbabeu,new valencia,atletico both 73-75k.They would easily beat Germany's record.


The Calderon(Athletico Madrid) only holds 55000!


----------



## RMB2007

^^ He's talking about the new Atletico Madrid stadium that's currently under construction.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=662282


----------



## gmacruyff

Ok,but Blbaos is 40000! Are they building a new stadium as well?


----------



## RMB2007

gmacruyff said:


> Ok,but Blbaos is 40000! Are they building a new stadium as well?


Yep. That's also under construction:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=450648


----------



## gmacruyff

Cheers!


----------



## Leedsrule

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21786199

Oh Really? Its a bit late now mate, overrule it and give it to Turkey or the Celtics ffs.


----------



## Good Karma

Leedsrule said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21786199
> 
> Oh Really? Its a bit late now mate, overrule it and give it to Turkey or the Celtics ffs.


For once I agree with Sepp Blatter, it should be in one country like most tournaments, that's what create the identity of a tournament. I don't like the fact now nearly every tournament now is a joint venture by two countries but I can just about accept it but 3 countries hosting like the Celtic nations?? That's just too much, That's not much different then having it all over Europe as they are planning. And tbh I prefer a Europe wide one just for this one occasion in that case.


----------



## Leedsrule

Good Karma said:


> For once I agree with Sepp Blatter, it should be in one country like most tournaments, that's what create the identity of a tournament. I don't like the fact now nearly every tournament now is a joint venture by two countries but I can just about accept it but 3 countries hosting like the Celtic nations?? That's just too much, That's not much different then having it all over Europe as they are planning. And tbh I prefer a Europe wide one just for this one occasion in that case.


I think a celtic one would still be ok because the countries are small and close, the disttance between stadiums would be less than in 2012 and most stadiums would be in only a few cities (Up to 3 in glasgow, possibly 2 in dublin and cardiff).


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

Good Karma said:


> For once I agree with Sepp Blatter, it should be in one country like most tournaments, that's what create the identity of a tournament. I don't like the fact now nearly every tournament now is a joint venture by two countries but I can just about accept it but 3 countries hosting like the Celtic nations?? That's just too much, That's not much different then having it all over Europe as they are planning. And tbh I prefer a Europe wide one just for this one occasion in that case.


A Celtic bid would still be good as they are relatively close and are on the British Isles. Technically Wales and Scotland are still in the UK and the ties with Ireland have always been close (even though some would make you think otherwise). In this regard the Celtic bid would still have that classic Tournament feel which you get with a one nation host.


----------



## The London BestShard

I think it should be 16 teams and 1 or 2 or maybe 3 hosts.


----------



## LucianPopa1000

Just because Blatter said the 2020 euro is bad it doesnt men platini is going to change his mind.I think its a once in a lifetime opportunity to have such a spread out tournament,i dont think there will be another one in our lifetimes.So why all the hate? a celtic bid doesnt even stand a chance against other nations(but it wont be the case so not worth talking about it).


----------



## Good Karma

You guys from England would naturally support the Celtic bid due to proximity. Would you feel the same way if for example Romania, Serbia and Bulgaria were to put in a joint bid? At least they all share a boundary unlike the Celtic nations. If it were 2 nations I could accept it. Uefa need to change it back to 16 teams so these countries would be able to host the event, ironically the Celtic nations supported the proposed increase in teams so they have a better chance to qualify for the tournaments but it now makes it more difficult for them to host the tournament.

So long as this is a one off for Euro 2020 where it is spread around Europe I can just about go with it but it then needs to go back to less teams and have One(preferably) or max two host nations.


----------



## The London BestShard

I've always said that World Cup should be 32 teams and all continental tournaments should be 16 teams (of course south america only have 10 so invite 6) IMO.


----------



## LucianPopa1000

^^ The number of teams in a torunamnet should vary.Not all continents have the same number of countries.


----------



## Leedsrule

Good Karma said:


> You guys from England would naturally support the Celtic bid due to proximity. Would you feel the same way if for example Romania, Serbia and Bulgaria were to put in a joint bid? At least they all share a boundary unlike the Celtic nations. If it were 2 nations I could accept it. Uefa need to change it back to 16 teams so these countries would be able to host the event, ironically the Celtic nations supported the proposed increase in teams so they have a better chance to qualify for the tournaments but it now makes it more difficult for them to host the tournament.


I support the Turkey bid before the celtic bid, but they might host the Olympics, and i think people underestimate the celtic bid. loads of people say that would be rubbish, but they could host it relitively easily because so many of the stadia are already built. 

In fact i think a Romania/ bulgaria bid would be brilliant.

I know its 'irrelivant' to discuss this because its sorted but i still hate the idea of a europe wide tournament. For one i agree with Twatter, I think it will just feel like another qualifying round. It might be ok if they do it properly and pick the stadiums in the small countries but they won't- theyll pick the big stadiums in the countries that are good at football. It might be a "once in a lifetime opportunity" but the way I see it is it's just a 4 team euro's with an extra qualifying round before.


----------



## George_D

Leedsrule said:


> I support the Turkey bid before the celtic bid, but they might host the Olympics, and i think people underestimate the celtic bid. loads of people say that would be rubbish, but they could host it relitively easily because so many of the stadia are already built.
> 
> In fact i think a Romania/ bulgaria bid would be brilliant.
> 
> I know its 'irrelivant' to discuss this because its sorted but i still hate the idea of a europe wide tournament. For one i agree with Twatter, I think it will just feel like another qualifying round. It might be ok if they do it properly and pick the stadiums in the small countries but they won't- theyll pick the big stadiums in the countries that are good at football. It might be a "once in a lifetime opportunity" but the way I see it is it's just a 4 team euro's with an extra qualifying round before.


i also support an independent Scotland


----------



## Good Karma

George_D said:


> i also support an independent Scotland


Probably thee most irrelavant post on any thread.

Anyway UEFA have made the decision now so we should focus on the potential venues. With regards to Istanbul getting the final, it will be a shame a stadium with an Athletics track gets the go ahead infront of soo many other stadiums in Europe without a track. I can see why on previous occasions there was no option but here you have the choice from the whole of Europe (well those that bid).


----------



## PAO13

Leedsrule said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21786199
> 
> Oh Really? Its a bit late now mate, overrule it and give it to Turkey or the Celtics ffs.


Haha that clown cant get anything right:bash: In fact, the more I think about it, the more awsome I belivie it will be.


----------



## chibimatty

Leedsrule said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21786199
> 
> Oh Really? Its a bit late now mate, overrule it and give it to Turkey or the Celtics ffs.


Ha ha! Might have to be careful with old Sepp! He might give Euro 2020 to Qatar! :lol:


----------



## dezmogos

i think that this euro should not be held in big countries that already hosted some euro in the past and probably gonna host it in the future... England, Germany, Spain, France... all of them can host it alone.. this should be opportunity for smaller countries to host it... Slovakia, Belgium, Czech, Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland, Belarus...all are not likely to host it in the near future (especially since that new format with 24 nations).. maybe some countries can make in future some joint bid but 24 teams are too much for 2 countries only..if Poland and Ukraine made joint bid for 16 then how to expect from Bulgaria, Romania, Sweden, Ireland, Estonia... to do it with 24

Croatia announced she will bid for 2020 with one city (still not known witch one)...
source


----------



## The London BestShard

13 Venues Should be -

Wembley Stadium - London (Semi Finals and Final) 90,000
Stade de France - Paris 81,000
Baku Olympic Stadium - Baku 65,000
Allianz Arena - Munich 69,000
Millennium Stadium - Cardiff 75,000
Aviva Stadium - Dublin 54,000
Olympic Stadium - Kiev 70,050
National Stadium - Warsaw 58,000
Ataturk Olympic Stadium - Istanbul 70,000
National Stadium - Bucharest 55,000
Friends Arena - Stockholm 50,000
Estadio da Luz - Lisbon 65,000
Amsterdam Arena - Amsterdam 53,000


----------



## LucianPopa1000

^^ I dont think France,Ukraine and Poland will get games.That goes for Russia too.


----------



## Good Karma

dezmogos said:


> i think that this euro should not be held in big countries that already hosted some euro in the past and probably gonna host it in the future... England, Germany, Spain, France... all of them can host it alone.. this should be opportunity for smaller countries to host it... Slovakia, Belgium, Czech, Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland, Belarus...all are not likely to host it in the near future (especially since that new format with 24 nations).. maybe some countries can make in future some joint bid but *24 teams are too much for 2 countries only..if Poland and Ukraine made joint bid for 16 then how to expect from Bulgaria, Romania, Sweden, Ireland, Estonia... to do it with 24*
> 
> Croatia announced she will bid for 2020 with one city (still not known witch one)...
> source


The easiest way to remedy that is to reduce it back to 16 teams. But the smaller nations would vote against it ironically ruling themselves out of being able to host the event. UEFA were stupid enough to go along with this without any proper thought process. It's a shame our game is run by such Clowns at UEFA and FIFA.

Anyway I agree with Lucian that France, Ukraine, Poland and Russia should not be included in the list for hosts at this tournament. It would be unfair on those that miss out as a result.


----------



## ReNaHtEiM

endrity said:


> Well a lot of countries could say the same thing, starting with Turkey, a large European country that is on the rise and could have the same ambitions as Italy regarding its competitiveness in European football. UEFA surely should not decide on who hosts a tournament simply to make them competitive (again).
> 
> Italy should try to deal with its problems by itself initially.


The only new stadium that was newly constructed in recent years in Italy is Juventus stadium. 

Whereas in Turkey there are the new Kayseri Stadium, Fenerbahce Stadium, Galatasaray Stadium, Besiktas Stadium and Bursa Stadium.


----------



## www.sercan.de

+ Konya, Ankara, Trabzon, Eskisehir, Antalya, Gaziantep, Adana, Kocaeli and Samsun.
Rest is under 30,000


----------



## Aulus

Turkey should bid for 2024, not for 3 games in 2020. That makes not sense.


----------



## endrity

ReNaHtEiM said:


> The only new stadium that was newly constructed in recent years in Italy is Juventus stadium.
> 
> Whereas in Turkey there are the new Kayseri Stadium, Fenerbahce Stadium, Galatasaray Stadium, Besiktas Stadium and Bursa Stadium.


And because they actually built those stadiums you want to penalize them? 

It should not be UEFA's objective to make one country competitive again in European football, they should do that themselves. 

p.s by the way, of the stadiums you mentioned only three would be used in a EURO. I am sure Turkey wants to build new stadiums for Ankara, Izmir, Trabzon, Samsun and other important cities. Some of them are being planned, but a EURO would give them the necessary boost to speed up the process.


----------



## ReNaHtEiM

endrity said:


> And because they actually built those stadiums you want to penalize them?
> 
> It should not be UEFA's objective to make one country competitive again in European football, they should do that themselves.
> 
> p.s by the way, of the stadiums you mentioned only three would be used in a EURO. I am sure Turkey wants to build new stadiums for Ankara, Izmir, Trabzon, Samsun and other important cities. Some of them are being planned, but a EURO would give them the necessary boost to speed up the process.


I've not penalized them. In no way.
I just said, that in MY opinion Italy needs it more at the moment and that Turkey should focus on the 2020 finals for Istanbul AND to go for a full tournament 12 years later which would give them time to get the country ready.

And of course it's not UEFA's duty to get the developments done but as you see in France now it gives an extensive boost to the whole process of building new stadiums or reconstructing older ones. That's something that already happens all over Turkey right now so they don't need that boost.

So, don't get me wrong, I would really like to see a full tournament in Turkey in the near future but for me Italy would be the next host. 

opcorn:


----------



## Kobo

Here is my list of 13 cities for Euro 2020. I've tried to give good geographical spread and allow countries who have never hosted.

Bulgaria- Sofia- 50,000
Sweden- Stockholm (Solna)- 50,000
Ireland- Dublin - 51,700
Romania- Bucharest - 55,600
Netherlands - Amsterdam - 65,000 (expanded Amsterdam Arena)
Scotland - Glasgow - 52,063 
Greece - Athens - 69,700
Germany - Munich - 71,000
Croatia - Zagreb - 55,000
Finland - Helsinki - 55,000
Spain - Madrid - 85,454
Italy - Rome - 72,698

Semi finals and final host city:
Turkey - Istanbul - 76,092


Let me know what you think. For the final I think its a toss up between Istanbul, Athens, Rome and Madrid.


----------



## endrity

ReNaHtEiM said:


> I've not penalized them. In no way.
> I just said, that in MY opinion Italy needs it more at the moment and that Turkey should focus on the 2020 finals for Istanbul AND to go for a full tournament 12 years later which would give them time to get the country ready.
> 
> And of course it's not UEFA's duty to get the developments done but as you see in France now it gives an extensive boost to the whole process of building new stadiums or reconstructing older ones. That's something that already happens all over Turkey right now so they don't need that boost.
> 
> So, don't get me wrong, I would really like to see a full tournament in Turkey in the near future but for me Italy would be the next host.
> 
> opcorn:


You should not get awarded a tournament because of need. Again, if that's the criteria then plenty of countries can make that case. It would mean that the worse a current situation is in a country, the better its chances to host a tournamet become. 

It's true that any country hosting the tournament will eventually profit from it, but you have to earn that opportunity and not be given it just because you need it. 

France's 2016 bid was ultimately accepted (if we put aside the Platini issue) because the stadium infrastructure was already under way in terms of planning for many of the cities, and compared to Turkey the country is much better connected. Lyon, Lille, Marseille, Bordeaux were planning on impressive new stadiums regardless of the tournament. Same with Germany 2006, which a lot of Italians blame for Bundesliga overtaking the Seria A in Champions League sports. Both Germany and France btw, have overhauled other smaller stadiums as well, showing a clear desire to improve their infrastructure. Turkey is doing the same now. 

I mention this because I remember Italy's bid for 2016. Without wanting to offend anyone, those plans were pathetic. Most of the planned improvements were seriously poor, and there were very few plans for new modern stadiums. With a country showing so little vision and desire, a Euro will not help too much anyway. And that's why UEFA was right not to award them the rights to host. 

Italy could begin by selling their clubs the current stadiums and allowing them to begin planning for improvements and finding the right financing. 3-4 Euro games will not be enough to pay for entire renovations anyway. It will help only once the rest of the plan is well drawn up. This is where Italy continues to fall very short.


----------



## endrity

Kobo said:


> Here is my list of 13 cities for Euro 2020. I've tried to give good geographical spread and allow countries who have never hosted.
> 
> Bulgaria- Sofia- 50,000
> Sweden- Stockholm (Solna)- 50,000
> Ireland- Dublin - 51,700
> Romania- Bucharest - 55,600
> Netherlands - Amsterdam - 65,000 (expanded Amsterdam Arena)
> Scotland - Glasgow - 52,063
> Greece - Athens - 69,700
> Germany - Munich - 71,000
> Croatia - Zagreb - 55,000
> Finland - Helsinki - 55,000
> Spain - Madrid - 85,454
> Italy - 72,698
> 
> Semi finals and final host city:
> Turkey - Istanbul - 76,092
> 
> 
> Let me know what you think. For the final I think its a toss up between Istanbul, Athens, Rome and Madrid.


I'd like the finals to go a small country that won't ever get a chance to host a full tournament in the future. Athens is probably the best bid because they have the largest stadium for such a country. Maybe Ireland or Scotland could propose their rugby stadiums, if they can get an agreement with the federations. The one in Dublin is huge if I am correct, something like 80 000. 

Maybe Helsinki with it's 50 000 Olympic Stadium, though it needs some major renovation.

Rome, Madrid, Munich, London, Paris... I am sure these cities would rather want to host the whole tournament.


----------



## Gombos

will Bulgaria, Croatia and Finland build stadiums? I am only asking.


----------



## Kobo

endrity said:


> I'd like the finals to go a small country that won't ever get a chance to host a full tournament in the future. Athens is probably the best bid because they have the largest stadium for such a country. Maybe Ireland or Scotland could propose their rugby stadiums, if they can get an agreement with the federations. The one in Dublin is huge if I am correct, something like 80 000.
> 
> Maybe Helsinki with it's 50 000 Olympic Stadium, though it needs some major renovation.
> 
> Rome, Madrid, Munich, London, Paris... I am sure these cities would rather want to host the whole tournament.


I completely agree with you about giving the final to Athens, it should get the final as Greece is unlikely to ever host the tournament on it's own (maybe co host one day). For me it was a toss up between Athens and Istanbul and I felt due to Greece's economy it won't be given the final. Rome and Madrid would be safe bets. 

I left out London and Paris as they are such global cities and as you said England would probably prefer to host the tournament on it's own; France would have hosted the tournament four years previously so it shouldn't get any matches; neither should Russia due it's world cup in 2018. However i'm sure when it comes down to voting Uefa won't have any guts to give it to Athens and they will give semi's and final to London as it can make lots of money for them.

Murrayfield in Edinburgh and Croke Park in Dublin won't host football matches. The Irish FA have just built the Aviva Stadium and would want to use that and the Scottish FA would want to use Hampden Park due to its history.


----------



## Andy-i

endrity said:


> I'd like the finals to go a small country that won't ever get a chance to host a full tournament in the future. Athens is probably the best bid because they have the largest stadium for such a country. Maybe Ireland or Scotland could propose their rugby stadiums, if they can get an agreement with the federations. The one in Dublin is huge if I am correct, something like 80 000.
> 
> Maybe Helsinki with it's 50 000 Olympic Stadium, though it needs some major renovation.
> 
> Rome, Madrid, Munich, London, Paris... I am sure these cities would rather want to host the whole tournament.


The Aviva stadium (50k) is home to the Irish Rugby and Football stadiums, amd it would be used for any 2020 bid.

The 80K stadium you mean, is Croke Park. Its home to the GAA (Gaelic sports) and hosts Gaelic Football matches.

It was used by the Rugby and Football teams whilst the Aviva was being built.


----------



## dande

Both Bulgaria and Romania? Pick one.


----------



## Poul_

The National Stadium in Warsaw and the Silesian Stadium in Chorzow were last week reported as a candidate stadiums to host euro 2020

Warsaw:








Chorzów:


----------



## Papa Pio XIII.

Gombos said:


> will Bulgaria, Croatia and Finland build stadiums? I am only asking.


I can talk only about the stadium in Zagreb. It is very unlikely that Zagreb will have in the future 50.000+ stadium.
In the moment, stadium Maksimir has 35.000 capacity. In last few years, Maksimir was filled only once.


----------



## Turkiiish

*BREAKING NEWS...*

Istanbul candidat for Uefa Euro 2020 (semi final & final) !

http://www.tff.org/default.aspx?pageID=285&ftxtID=18918


ATATURK OLIMPIYAT STADIUM - 70 000


----------



## ReNaHtEiM

Turkiiish said:


> *BREAKING NEWS...*
> 
> Istanbul candidat for Uefa Euro 2020 (semi final & final) !
> 
> http://www.tff.org/default.aspx?pageID=285&ftxtID=18918
> 
> 
> ATATURK OLIMPIYAT STADIUM - 70 000


Will the stadium be renovated after the failed bid?


----------



## ayanamikun

OAKA will require some renovation works never the less. Its dilapidated condition is mostly visual and on the surface, due to the lack of proper maintenance. The real problem was the decision to use the old type of seats during the 2003/2004 rebuilt, which means that they will need to be replaced inevitably, as they are going to be completely outdated by 2020.


----------



## Aulus

If Istanbul gets the semi-final matches and the final, they will have no chance to bid for a 'real' European Championship or a World Cup for the next 20 years. Why are they going to build at least 10-15 new stadia in several cities and at the same time why are they seriously going to bid for 3 matches? That really makes not sense.


----------



## mopper

We in Bulgaria will bid for 2020 with new stadium with capacity not bigger than 30-35 000.


----------



## Zgembo

Turkiiish said:


> *BREAKING NEWS...*
> 
> Istanbul candidat for Uefa Euro 2020 (semi final & final) !
> 
> http://www.tff.org/default.aspx?pageID=285&ftxtID=18918
> 
> 
> ATATURK OLIMPIYAT STADIUM - 70 000


I guess all these bid failures have made Turkey take the easier path towards hosting a major event. I wish they endured for some more, the country has enough potential to host a WC on its own, let alone a Euro.


----------



## jackass94

St.Petersburg, Russia will bid for 2020
Zenit Arena (exact name hasn't been chosen yet) - 68-70k (will be built in 2016)


----------



## couchsurf

I hope St Petersburg will win in the bid for semi final and final matches with this amazing stadium.

I really hope that Istanbul will lost if bid for that


----------



## www.sercan.de

Aulus said:


> If Istanbul gets the semi-final matches and the final, they will have no chance to bid for a 'real' European Championship or a World Cup for the next 20 years. Why are they going to build at least 10-15 new stadia in several cities and at the same time why are they seriously going to bid for 3 matches? That really makes not sense.


Because the current TFF is just a puppy of the government.
There are just there to protect BJK and FB (match fixing, relagation etc)

They have no vision.


On the hand i have to say that the turks don't trust Platini.

Maybe the EURO 2024 will go to Italy. There will be always a reason against Turkey etc


----------



## AutobahnA3

^^

Istanbul should get EURO 2020 Final.

Turkey could host a EURO 2024 but with lobby people like Platini there is no trust.


----------



## tom77

*Hungary will bid for EURO 2020 with the new, 60-65k Puskás Ferenc Stadium
*


----------



## Good Karma

Should all other nations forget about bidding for the 'Semi Final and Final' package as it seems Istanbul will be the automatic choice?


----------



## 859098

Never trust the rumours.


----------



## RMB2007

> The Valencia is aiming for Euro 2020
> 
> The club fits the new Mestalla to opt to be a venue for touring editing Spain plans to UEFA
> 
> This past May, the Spanish Federation addressed all regions to communicate that opened the specifications marked by UEFA to find venues for Euro 2020. The intention of the European body is, in times of crisis, sharing the burden and find a traveling edition where the headquarters are distributed among several countries. The conditions in Spain, is that the fields that choose to host games were not included in the Madrid 2020 Olympic bid as events, in case the Spanish capital was chosen, would overlap the same year. Of course, once the Games are in Tokyo, still doubt if Real Madrid, for example, may submit documentation to the Bernabeu to host chooses.
> 
> Today, the term has not been closed and the Federation, as yesterday released Brand, has applications for Valencia and Athletic for their new stadiums are Spanish options. Although the works of Valencian enclosure are paralyzed, this complies with required by UEFA in the specification: that they are initiated before January 2016. In the Valencia understand that in the event that the stadium is chosen, it opens a new horizon with respect to the search for funding. Because it would be much easier to convince businesses to invest in finishing the enclosure if it is assured that it will host a European Championship matches.
> 
> In addition, the candidacy of Valencia seduces the Federation because, unlike the Nuevo San Mames, meets one of the requirements for stages that choose to host a semifinal or end: having at least 60,000 seats. Athletic's new home will be finished with 53,000 while the Coliseum Valencia, despite the reduction of costs and the modification of the original project, will seat 64,000 spectators.


http://t.co/OQruuTzlsI


----------



## Poul_

I think that Istanbul will be one of 13 cities, but will not host the final. This will be jubilee championship, so final will be in Paris or London.
And Platini is French...


----------



## George_D

Poul_ said:


> I think that Istanbul will be one of 13 cities, but will not host the final. This will be jubilee championship, so final will be in Paris or London.
> And Platini is French...


It cant be in Paris in 2020 since euro 2016 is in France and the final in paris also


----------



## parcdesprinces

^^ BTW, speaking of France:



> *France Tabs Lyon As Euro 2020 Venue*
> (AFP) Wednesday 11 September 2013
> 
> *The French Football Federation have put forth Lyon as a candidate to host matches at UEFA Euro 2020, sources close to the bid process revealed on Wednesday.*
> 
> The tournament will for the first time be held in 13 different cities across Europe, with one designated city serving as the venue for both the semi-finals and final.
> 
> Alternatively, cities can campaign to host three group stage matches as well as a round of 16 match or quarter-final, while only one city per country will be allowed to serve as a host venue.
> 
> Taking into account the 58,000 capacity of Lyon's Grand Stade, which should be completed in time for the second half of the 2015/16 season, the stadium would only be able to bid for games in the early rounds.
> 
> Lyon's candidacy is the lone French bid, but with the country organising Euro 2016, the French submission does not figure to be among the favourites, the source told AFP.
> 
> The deadline for candidate cities to formally submit their applications is Thursday, while UEFA's executive committee will announce which cities have formally entered the race later ths month.
> 
> The candidate cities will then have until 25 April 2014 to submit their bid dossiers. UEFA is scheduled to name the 13 hosts in September 2014.


fifa.com


----------



## parcdesprinces

George_D said:


> It cant be in Paris in 2020 since euro 2016 is in France and the final in paris also


This, and also the fact that Paris (Stade de France) simply didn't bid for Euro 2020, AFAIK  (Lyon being apparently the sole French candidate city/stadium).


----------



## jpgjohnnyg

It would be a ridiculous decision to give France a 2020 venue when it is hosting the whole tournament in 2016 but then again nothing would surprise me when it comes to UEFA or FIFA stupidity


----------



## Genç

I hope Budapest gets the final, there should be some nice commemoration to the contribution Hungary has made to European football. I want Turkey to host 2024 completely. 

However, like Sercan says, the Turkish FA has no vision at all and will probably bid for, and win, the 2020 Final and pass it off as some sort of success. When in reality it will have ZERO benefit for Turkish football....nowhere near as much as hosting an entire tournament would anyway.

If only they hadn't bothered with the damn Olympics bid, Turkey would have Euro 2020 in the bag by now.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

I think Turkey were being too greedy in wanting to host both. They should've focused on one and put all efforts into that. Lets face it Turkeys Euro 2020 bid was the most credible out of all the bids and that would've been a stepping stone to the Olympics. They should avoid Euro 2020 and they will be in a strong position for 2024. 

It would be interesting to see when all official bids are submitted.


----------



## hugenholz

Candidates:

*Azerbaijan (Baku)*
Olympic Stadium (68,000)	Stadium currently under construction, completion 2015

*Belgium (Brussels)*
National Stadium (50,000)
Planned new building for 300 million euros

*Bulgaria (Sofia)*
Vasil Levski National Stadium (open)
Planned construction of the National Stadium , possibly exceptional case capacity below 40,000

*Germany (Munich)*
Allianz Arena (67,812)
Expressed interest in Finale

*England (London)*
Wembley Stadium (90,000)
Withdrawn interest for Final Package

*France (Lyon)*
Stade des Lumiéres (61,556)
Interest despite EURO 2016

*Greece (open)*
Olympiako Stadium "Spiros Louis" (71,000)
Interest in group stage

*The Netherlands (Amsterdam)*
Amsterdam Arena (52,960)
Expressed interest, expansion to 57.000 seats

*Poland (Warsaw / Chorzow)*
Narodowy Stadium (58.145) , Slaski Stadium (54,477)
Application with two stages

*Portugal (Lisbon / Porto)*
Estadio da Luz (65.647), Estadio do Dragao (50,399)
Decision at a later date

*Romania (Bucharest)*
Nationala Arena (55,600)
Application for Group Stage

*Russia (Saint Petersburg)*
Zenit-Arena (62,000)
Application despite the 2018 World Cup

*Sweden (Stockholm)* 
Friends Arena (50,000)
Application for Group Stage

*Switzerland (Basel)*
St. Jakob Park (38,512)
Application for exception (capacity less than 40,000)

*Serbia (Belgrade)*
Stadion Crvena Zvezda (open)
Planned reconstruction

*Czech Republic (Prague)*
open
Possibly new (possibly on the grounds of Strahov )

*Turkey (Istanbul)*
Atatürk Olimpiyat (76,092)
Possible final

*Ukraine (Kyiv / Donetsk)*
NSK Olimpiysky (70,050), Donbass Arena (50,000)
Application for Final Package with Kiev, Donetsk for group stage

*Hungary (Budapest)*
Ferenc Puskas Stadium (65,000)
Never hosted a major tournament

*Belarus (Minsk)*
National Stadium (40,000)
Construction of the National Stadium from 2014

Sources: Stadienwelt.de and uefa.com


----------



## Loranga

http://www.expressen.se/sport/fotboll/landslaget/sverige-en-av-manga-kandidater-till-em-2020/

Friends Arena (50,000), Stockholm, Sweden should be in there as well.


----------



## hugenholz

Loranga said:


> http://www.expressen.se/sport/fotboll/landslaget/sverige-en-av-manga-kandidater-till-em-2020/
> 
> Friends Arena (50,000), Stockholm, Sweden should be in there as well.


Done


----------



## dande

We are a year away from final decision. So, is UEFA going to bet on the safe cards and award the hosting to cities with already completed stadia or are they going to throw in few risky alternatives. If they award matches to a city based on a sole promise "we will build a stadium" they can always take it back if in fact the stadium isn´t built by 2018 or so. I hope that they will make sure that all parts of europe are represented.


----------



## lwa

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/24174069?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

The 32 countries interested in hosting Euro 2020 games:
Armenia (Yerevan), Azerbaijan (Baku), Belarus (Minsk), Belgium (Brussels), Bulgaria (Sofia), Croatia (Zagreb), Czech Republic (Prague), Denmark (Copenhagen), England (London), Finland (Helsinki), France (Lyon), Macedonia (Skopje), Germany (Munich), Greece (Athens), Hungary (Budapest), Israel (Jerusalem), Italy (Rome and Milan), Kazakhstan (Astana), Netherlands (Amsterdam), Poland (Warsaw and Chorzow), Portugal (Lisbon and Porto), Republic of Ireland (Dublin), Romania (Bucharest), Russia (St Petersburg), Scotland (Glasgow), Serbia (Belgrade), Spain (Madrid, Barcelona, Bilbao and Valencia), Sweden (Solna), Switzerland (Basel), Turkey (Istanbul), Ukraine (Kyiv and Donetsk) and Wales (Cardiff).


Though I know for certain Glasgow (Hampden) doesn't currently meet the requirements, not sure about others..


----------



## DaveyCakes

Lots of interestig options there.....

I'd be surprised if Astana or Jerusalem were selected, they're both too far removed from any other city to make a reasonable pair for a group.

There are afew obvious pairs...Amsterdam & Brussels, Portugal & Spain, the "lets be friends" pair of Zagreb and Belgrade (Yerevan and Baku might be stretching it a bit far). Helsinki & St. Petersburg would be an ideal pairing.

I think Dublin is likely to be selected, with the group partner depending on whether London gets the finals.

I think Bucharest is also very likely, potentially with Istanbul or Sofia

I'd like to see Minsk selected, presumably either with Warsaw/Chorzow if Kiev is bidding for the final


----------



## Sisimoto the HUN

hugenholz said:


> Candidates:
> 
> *Azerbaijan (Baku)*
> Olympic Stadium (68,000)	Stadium currently under construction, completion 2015
> 
> *Belgium (Brussels)*
> National Stadium (50,000)
> Planned new building for 300 million euros
> 
> *Bulgaria (Sofia)*
> Vasil Levski National Stadium (open)
> Planned construction of the National Stadium , possibly exceptional case capacity below 40,000
> 
> *Germany (Munich)*
> Allianz Arena (67,812)
> Expressed interest in Finale
> 
> *England (London)*
> Wembley Stadium (90,000)
> Withdrawn interest for Final Package
> 
> *France (Lyon)*
> Stade des Lumiéres (61,556)
> Interest despite EURO 2016
> 
> *Greece (open)*
> Olympiako Stadium "Spiros Louis" (71,000)
> Interest in group stage
> 
> *The Netherlands (Amsterdam)*
> Amsterdam Arena (52,960)
> Expressed interest, expansion to 57.000 seats
> 
> *Poland (Warsaw / Chorzow)*
> Narodowy Stadium (58.145) , Slaski Stadium (54,477)
> Application with two stages
> 
> *Portugal (Lisbon / Porto)*
> Estadio da Luz (65.647), Estadio do Dragao (50,399)
> Decision at a later date
> 
> *Romania (Bucharest)*
> Nationala Arena (55,600)
> Application for Group Stage
> 
> *Russia (Saint Petersburg)*
> Zenit-Arena (62,000)
> Application despite the 2018 World Cup
> 
> *Sweden (Stockholm)*
> Friends Arena (50,000)
> Application for Group Stage
> 
> *Switzerland (Basel)*
> St. Jakob Park (38,512)
> Application for exception (capacity less than 40,000)
> 
> *Serbia (Belgrade)*
> Stadion Crvena Zvezda (open)
> Planned reconstruction
> 
> *Czech Republic (Prague)*
> open
> Possibly new (possibly on the grounds of Strahov )
> 
> *Turkey (Istanbul)*
> Atatürk Olimpiyat (76,092)
> Possible final
> 
> *Ukraine (Kyiv / Donetsk)*
> NSK Olimpiysky (70,050), Donbass Arena (50,000)
> Application for Final Package with Kiev, Donetsk for group stage
> 
> *Hungary (Budapest)*
> Ferenc Puskas Stadium (65,000)
> Never hosted a major tournament
> 
> *Belarus (Minsk)*
> National Stadium (40,000)
> Construction of the National Stadium from 2014


What is this enhancement regarding Hungary? "Never hosted a major tournament"..World and European football championships,Olympics we haven't hosted yet,that is correct!So what?And Azerbaijan,Belarus,Bulgaria,or Romania which has until now hosted only a single EL final in their stadion? What do you mean or suggest by that quote? Maybe you think Hungary is not capable to host a major tournament, just because we haven't got the "honor" and "trust" until now from the international associations Fifa & Uefa? 
For your notice Hungary were finalist in three times for the 2004(with Austria),2008 & for the 2012(Hungary & Croatia) european football championship candidates..We have the will & intention to host! Uefa makes the decisions..


----------



## Loranga

I would vote for cities in countries that are too small to host a regular EURO.


----------



## muc

Though I would love to see games here in Munich I'd say the focus should be on smaller nations that won't likely get the opportunity to host an entire tournament on their own.


----------



## hugenholz

The statements are from stadienwelt.de it's only a translation in English. Besides I think it will be an advantage for a country who never hosted a tournament before. I am sure UEFA will pick the small countries who never hosted any major tournament because that's the basic idea for this tournament.


----------



## Gombos




----------



## Gombos

*UEFA.com*

*The appointment of the host cities by the UEFA Executive Committee will take place on 25 September 2014.*

The final tournament will be staged in 13 cities across Europe. The matches will be split into 13 different packages, with 12 standard packages, including three group matches and one knockout round (round of 16 or quarter-final), and one package for the semi-finals and the final.

Each of the 32 associations will be allowed to present up to two bids – one for the standard package and one for the semi-finals/final package. Each national association can decide to present the same city, or two different cities, for these two bids, but there will be a maximum of one venue appointed per country. The candidates have the right to change their initial host city selection, but must submit their final bid dossier by 25 April 2014.

The 32 member associations that have stated their interest, together with their proposed provisional host cities, are:

Armenia (Yerevan), Azerbaijan (Baku), Belarus (Minsk), Belgium (Brussels), Bulgaria (Sofia), Croatia (Zagreb), Czech Republic (Prague), Denmark (Copenhagen), England (London), Finland (Helsinki), France (Lyon), Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (Skopje), Germany (Munich), Greece (Athens), Hungary (Budapest), Israel (Jerusalem), Italy (Rome, Milan), Kazakhstan (Astana), Netherlands (Amsterdam), Poland (Warsaw, Chorzow), Portugal (Lisbon, Porto), Republic of Ireland (Dublin), Romania (Bucharest), Russia (St Petersburg), Scotland (Glasgow), Serbia (Belgrade), Spain (Madrid, Barcelona, Bilbao, Valencia), Sweden (Solna), Switzerland (Basel), Turkey (Istanbul), Ukraine (Kyiv, Donetsk) and Wales (Cardiff). 

_"We are extremely proud to see the huge interest in the bidding process, with more than half of our member associations willing to host matches at UEFA EURO 2020," said UEFA President Michel Platini. "The finals will be a great celebration of football across the European continent, and the 60th anniversary edition will be truly special, by really coming to the doorstep of all football fans."_


----------



## dande

Right off the bat: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Croatia, Finland, Kazakhstan, Serbia, Wales, Israel, Macedonia, Hungary...very very unlikely.


----------



## hugenholz

edit


----------



## Gombos

*my final list*

*16 delusional applications in my opinion* (also, do not forget that UEFA celebrates 60 years):

Armenia, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan (all with minor tradition, 0 participations)

Belarus (not yet, even though decent tradition; maybe next time)

Finland and Wales (both will have to fight against neighbours with bigger tradition, moreover no participation)

Belgium, Netherlands, Portugal, Poland, Switzerland and Ukraine (all hosted the tournament after 2000)

Czech Republic and Macedonia (small stadiums; probably the Macedonians will also get the Supercup of Europe in the future)

Bulgaria and Serbia (they will compete against Romania and even Hungary)

France (will host the 2016 EURO)

_+_

1 from the Ireland, Scotland & England group could be out (I have this feeling that UEFA will choose only 2 from the region)

so I numbered 17 out of discussion from 32 (more than half). 15 left on 13 spots (if there is no corruption), it is not that hard to choose. Zagreb is on the 15 cities list in my opinion, but with less chances than getting it in my opinion (40%). so in the eyes of UEFA, maybe only 14 on 13 spots. or 15 on 13 spots if we include all 3 from the Islands.


----------



## Gombos

hugenholz said:


> Belgium and The Netherlands organised the event in 2000 not in 2004


I feel they will not get it if UEFA is correct. Cruyff has big influence at UEFA, but still... both could bid for a future World Cup or for the next EURO! Belgium has nice tradition, the Netherlands great, but it would not be fair to be honest.

in future, they must find a ROTATION SYSTEM, like in the European Union (with the presidency). because in some years the majority of nations will be prepared. 



dande said:


> Right off the bat: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Croatia, Finland, Kazakhstan, Serbia, Wales, Israel, Macedonia, Hungary...very very unlikely.


I would not exclude Hungary and even Israel. Israel is unlikely though.


----------



## Gombos

if I would be UEFA, I would pick these 13 countries, no hard feelings I love all Europe and my neighbours but I explained why - in this moment of 2013:

1. Denmark
2. England
3. Germany
4. Greece
5. Hungary
6. Italy
7. Romania
8. Russia
9. Scotland
10. Spain
11. Sweden
12. Turkey
13. Ireland/Israel


----------



## MonteChristo

Poland is bidding with 2 stadiums:

Warsaw:










Silesia:


----------



## Gombos

hugenholz said:


> *Romania (Bucharest)*
> Nationala Arena (55,600)
> Application for Group Stage


for group stage (one group) and a 1/16 I read today. fair enough. we can host it even tomorrow in the capital, after the hosted Europa League Final in 2012.


----------



## SE9

My indicative proposal is still alive :happy:



SE9 said:


> - *South West Europe:* Madrid and Lisbon (Group A).
> 3 group matches each, plus:
> *Lisbon:* round of 16 host.
> *Madrid:* Quarter Final host.
> 
> - *North West Europe:* London and Amsterdam (Group B).
> 3 group matches each, plus:
> *Amsterdam:* round of 16 host.
> *London:* Quarter Final host.
> 
> - *Alps West/Central Europe:* Munich and Milan (Group C).
> 3 group matches each, plus:
> *Milan:* round of 16 host.
> *Munich:* Quarter Final host.
> 
> - *Northern Europe/Scandinavia:* Stockholm and Copenhagen (Group D).
> 3 group matches each, plus:
> *Copenhagen:* round of 16 host.
> *Stockholm:* round of 16 host.
> 
> - *Eastern Europe:* Warsaw and Kiev (Group E).
> 3 group matches each, plus:
> *Kiev:* round of 16 host.
> *Warsaw:* round of 16 host.
> 
> - *South East Europe:* Bucharest and Athens (Group F).
> 3 group matches each, plus:
> *Athens:* round of 16 host.
> *Bucharest:* Quarter Final host.
> 
> - *Final:* Istanbul
> 
> 
> Stadium Info
> 
> - *Total stadia:* 13
> 
> - *Stadia with an Athletics track:* 3 (Kiev, Athens, Istanbul)
> 
> - *Stadia without an Athletics track:* 10 (Lisbon, Madrid, London, Amsterdam, Milan, Munich, Stockholm, Copenhagen, Bucharest, Warsaw)
> 
> - *Stadia +80k:* 3 (Madrid, Milan, London)
> 
> - *Stadia 60k - 80k:* 5 (Athens, Munich, Kiev, Istanbul, Lisbon)
> 
> - *Stadia 50k - 60k:* 4 (Bucharest, Warsaw, Stockholm, Amsterdam)
> 
> - *Stadia under 50k:* 1 (Copenhagen) - allowance for 2 maximum


----------



## 859098

For Brussels the working name for the project is "Euro stadium" and it will contain 60.000 seats.


----------



## endrity

SE9 said:


> My indicative proposal is still alive :happy:


Well, Lisbon has hosted a tournament rather recently, so has Amsterdam, Kiev and Warsaw. 

Maybe Valencia and Bilbao for the South West. Edinburgh and Dublin for NW. Budapest and Belgrade for Central Europe.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

Although it would be nice to see some matches in London I'm not sure whether I want England to host any matches during 2020. Rather they could hold out for hosting Euro 2024. Though I could change my mind.


----------



## Leedsrule

Its AlL gUUd said:


> Although it would be nice to see some matches in London I'm not sure whether I want England to host any matches during 2020. Rather they could hold out for hosting Euro 2024. Though I could change my mind.


Me too, although I think we should apply for a world cup, not a euro's. Id rather see Ireland, Scotland and/or wales get it instead.


----------



## SE9

After World Cup '66 and Euro '96, England want a World Cup not another Euros. 

I put Wembley because that's the only stadium I expected the FA to put forward, and UEFA seem to be in love with Wembley.


----------



## ETSman

Stupid idea, f**** UEFA. Host it in one country or two, not the whole europe.


----------



## nbcee

These are my picks:



Amsterdam (Netherlands) - the country was a host in 2000, the national team has 9 appearances, best result: winners (1988)
Baku (Azerbaijan) - the national team has 0 appearances
Barcelona (Spain) - the country was a host in 1964, the national team has 9 appearances, best result: winners (1964, 2008, 2012)
Budapest (Hungary) - the national team has 2 appearances, best result: third place (1964)
Bucharest (Romania) - the national team has 4 appearances, best result: quarter-finalist (2000)
Copenhagen (Denmark) - the national team has 8 appearances, best result: winners (1992)
Lisbon (Portugal) - the country was a host in 2004, the national team has 6 appearances, best result: second place (2004)
London (England) - the country was a host in 1996, the national team has 8 appearances, best result: third place (1968)
Munich (Germany) - the country was a host in 1988, the national team has 11 appearances*, best result: winners (1972, 1980, 1996)
Rome (Italy) - the country was a host in 1968 and 1980, the national team has 8 appearances, best result: winners (1968)
Stockholm (Sweden) - the country was a host in 1992, the national team has 5 appearances, best result: semi-finalists (1992)
St. Petersburg (Russia) - the national team has 10 appearances**, best result: winners (1960)
Istanbul (Turkey) FINALS - the national team has 3 appearances, best result: semi-finalists (2008)
*5 as West Germany
**5 as the Soviet Union and 1 as the CIS

p.s. In the case of Italy, Portugal and Spain I'm not 100% sure which city will submit a bid for the standard package and which for the semi-finals/finalpackage


----------



## alwn

Aelius said:


> You are right to have doubts. Sofia is unlikely to have a new 50,000 stadium. The officials said they have plans for a 25,000-30,000 stadium, yet there is no futher information at the moment.


Lor! is plenty of time untill 2020. I'm sure Sofia will build a new stadium replacing the current V. Levski and Mihailov will get the host.


----------



## 859098

A preview of how the new Brussels Stadium could look like.


----------



## hater

hope Baku gets picked as one of the cities to host the games , currently 68k stadium is getting built and new highways around it are U/C , everything to be completed in 2 years ,


----------



## sali_haci

^^ Hope you get the final!


----------



## Galandar

sali_haci said:


> ^^ Hope you get the final!


Thank you but Baku is bidding only for a group stage and quarter final package.


----------



## Mr. Landmark

nbcee said:


> These are my picks:
> 
> 
> 
> Amsterdam (Netherlands) - the country was a host in 2000, the national team has 9 appearances, best result: winners (1988)
> Baku (Azerbaijan) - the national team has 0 appearances
> Barcelona (Spain) - the country was a host in 1964, the national team has 9 appearances, best result: winners (1964, 2008, 2012)
> Budapest (Hungary) - the national team has 2 appearances, best result: third place (1964)
> Bucharest (Romania) - the national team has 4 appearances, best result: quarter-finalist (2000)
> Copenhagen (Denmark) - the national team has 8 appearances, best result: winners (1992)
> Lisbon (Portugal) - the country was a host in 2004, the national team has 6 appearances, best result: second place (2004)
> London (England) - the country was a host in 1996, the national team has 8 appearances, best result: third place (1968)
> Munich (Germany) - the country was a host in 1988, the national team has 11 appearances*, best result: winners (1972, 1980, 1996)
> Rome (Italy) - the country was a host in 1968 and 1980, the national team has 8 appearances, best result: winners (1968)
> Stockholm (Sweden) - the country was a host in 1992, the national team has 5 appearances, best result: semi-finalists (1992)
> St. Petersburg (Russia) - the national team has 10 appearances**, best result: winners (1960)
> Istanbul (Turkey) FINALS - the national team has 3 appearances, best result: semi-finalists (2008)
> *5 as West Germany
> **5 as the Soviet Union and 1 as the CIS
> 
> p.s. In the case of Italy, Portugal and Spain I'm not 100% sure which city will submit a bid for the standard package and which for the semi-finals/finalpackage


And uhm..., what about France (and for example Belgium or Poland)?

And sorry... Baku????? I don't think so.
Final in Turkey?


----------



## nbcee

First of all these are just my guesses. Anyone can write a list like that even you.


Mr. Landmark said:


> And uhm..., what about France (and for example Belgium or Poland)?


France will host the tournament in 2016 (for the third time!) and Poland was a host in 2012 (that's why I haven't picked Ukraine either). So I thought that UEFA will give a chance to others this time. 

And I just happened to choose the Netherlands over Belgium.


Mr. Landmark said:


> And sorry... Baku????? I don't think so.











Baku is rapidly evolving and they were among the TOP5 candidate cities for the 2020 Olympics. (Not among the final three candidate cities though). I'm 100% sure they can manage to build a proper stadium.


Mr. Landmark said:


> Final in Turkey?


They lost Euro 2016 by just one vote. Istanbul was second behind Tokyo on the 2020 Olympics vote. Turkey means business.:cheers:
Heck even the English FA said that they think Istanbul will host the semi-finals and the final!


----------



## Birmingham

I'm actually all for this concept in principle that A) Istanbul or London host the final. B) No games are held in France.

What happens if 4 of the 24 teams that qualify for the Euro's are either England, Wales, Scotland, Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. 

Platini says the games will be brought to the fans so the fans don't have to travel. 

Which means geographical groups will be implemented. 

Imagine if 4 out of those 5 teams qualify they will surely be playing in the same group but at different national stadiums. 

England V Wales @ Hampden Park.
Ireland V N. Ireland @ Wembley. 

That's just silly and asking for trouble for a start. 

If for instance and in good humour (if England made it to the final) they use a ratio. 

England could play there first game in Cardiff, 3 days later land in Sweden, Play a game there. Fly over to Holland. Play a game there. Move on to Austria in the R16 play there, Fly to Spain for Quarter-final, Fly back to England for Semi Final and Then fly back to Istanbul for the final.

All in 28 days. 

How many fans are going to be able to afford that?? Platini doesn't seem to care about the financial implications for loyal fans. 

It's ridiculous. 2/3 weeks in Turkey is a simple return flight booking plus accomodation. 

Now it could turn into 

Train to Cardiff
Flight to Sweden
Flight to Holland
Flight to Austria
Flight to Spain
Flight to England
Flight to Istanbul. 

Effectively pricing out every fan on the continent to see every match if their team reaches the final. 

My viewing would simply end after the trip to The Netherlands. I'd be skint.


----------



## alwn

my picks:

Group A: Baku, Yerevan
Group B: Bucuresti, Sofia
Group C: Budapest, Zagreb
Group D: Solna, Kobenhavn
Group E: Roma, Madrid
Group F: London, Glasgow

semifinals+ final Istanbul


----------



## prahovaploiesti

Sisimoto the HUN said:


> Ask Mr Putin!


Yes, he knows best, doesn't he.


----------



## nillie

It would be a joke not to include the capital of EU, which is Brussels in case some of you dont know that...


----------



## nbcee

nillie said:


> It would be a joke not to include the capital of EU, which is Brussels in case some of you dont know that...


Until the establishment of the USE it is just the _de facto _but not the _de jure _ capital in case you don't know that. :colgate: (And there are also some important EU institutions based in Strasbourg, Frankfurt and Luxemburg too.)

But like I said before: Anyone can write a list of host cities based on his/her preferences even you.


----------



## vitacit

*...*

hmmm... budapest and bucuresti. i don't know. relatively close to each other. please, don't uderstand me bad, i'm very often in bucuresti (business) and in budapest (just across the border from slovakia), i like both cities very much but i'd rather prefere only one of them. and yes - i'd prefer budapest as the city itself is great, i heard nepstadion will be reconstructed and city is well-known among the tourists. 



nbcee said:


> These are my picks:
> 
> 
> 
> Amsterdam (Netherlands) - the country was a host in 2000, the national team has 9 appearances, best result: winners (1988)
> Baku (Azerbaijan) - the national team has 0 appearances
> Barcelona (Spain) - the country was a host in 1964, the national team has 9 appearances, best result: winners (1964, 2008, 2012)
> Budapest (Hungary) - the national team has 2 appearances, best result: third place (1964)
> Bucharest (Romania) - the national team has 4 appearances, best result: quarter-finalist (2000)
> Copenhagen (Denmark) - the national team has 8 appearances, best result: winners (1992)
> Lisbon (Portugal) - the country was a host in 2004, the national team has 6 appearances, best result: second place (2004)
> London (England) - the country was a host in 1996, the national team has 8 appearances, best result: third place (1968)
> Munich (Germany) - the country was a host in 1988, the national team has 11 appearances*, best result: winners (1972, 1980, 1996)
> Rome (Italy) - the country was a host in 1968 and 1980, the national team has 8 appearances, best result: winners (1968)
> Stockholm (Sweden) - the country was a host in 1992, the national team has 5 appearances, best result: semi-finalists (1992)
> St. Petersburg (Russia) - the national team has 10 appearances**, best result: winners (1960)
> Istanbul (Turkey) FINALS - the national team has 3 appearances, best result: semi-finalists (2008)
> *5 as West Germany
> **5 as the Soviet Union and 1 as the CIS
> 
> p.s. In the case of Italy, Portugal and Spain I'm not 100% sure which city will submit a bid for the standard package and which for the semi-finals/finalpackage


----------



## nbcee

vitacit said:


> hmmm... budapest and bucuresti. i don't know. relatively close to each other. please, don't uderstand me bad, i'm very often in bucuresti (business) and in budapest (just across the border from slovakia), i like both cities very much but i'd rather prefere only one of them. and yes - i'd prefer budapest as the city itself is great, i heard nepstadion will be reconstructed and city is well-known among the tourists.


Thanks for your kind words but I must say something:

That was the point. 

I am among those who think that all the matches in each group should be held in two cities relatively close to each other. (Distances can be problematic just look at the comment of _Birmingham_) it's not a new idea as it has been discussed previously in this thread too.

And the distance between Budapest and Bucharest is ~650 km which is not extremely short compared to distances like London-Amsterdam (~350 km) or Stockholm-Copenhagen (~525 km).

p.s. I would like to modify my first list with Sochi (the FAs can change their host city selection until 25 April 2014) instead of St. Petersburg. Or maybe Milan instead of Rome.


----------



## hater

nbcee said:


> Baku is rapidly evolving and they were among the TOP5 candidate cities for the 2020 Olympics. (Not among the final three candidate cities though). I'm 100% sure they can manage to build a proper stadium.


the 68k stadium is already U/C 
and should be completed by 2015


----------



## DaveyCakes

nbcee said:


> Thanks for your kind words but I must say something:
> 
> That was the point.
> 
> I am among those who think that all the matches in each group should be held in two cities relatively close to each other......
> 
> p.s. I would like to modify my first list with Sochi (the FAs can change their host city selection until 25 April 2014) instead of St. Petersburg. Or maybe Milan instead of Rome.


I think that the Russian FA chose St. Petersburg because it will make a nice pair with Helsinki for a group.


----------



## jackass94

I think the reason is that St.Peterburg is gonna have one of the best stadiums in the world with 70k capacity and a retractable roof and pitch, arena in Sochi is nice but it's just a well-designed 45-50k arena

And right, it could make up a great Baltic cluster with Helsinki and Stockholm


And i guess it's just too much for Sochi 
They will host Olympics 2014, Formula-1 grand-prix (since 2014) and WC-2018


----------



## MoreOrLess

Birmingham said:


> I'm actually all for this concept in principle that A) Istanbul or London host the final. B) No games are held in France.
> 
> What happens if 4 of the 24 teams that qualify for the Euro's are either England, Wales, Scotland, Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland.
> 
> Platini says the games will be brought to the fans so the fans don't have to travel.
> 
> Which means geographical groups will be implemented.
> 
> Imagine if 4 out of those 5 teams qualify they will surely be playing in the same group but at different national stadiums.
> 
> England V Wales @ Hampden Park.
> Ireland V N. Ireland @ Wembley.
> 
> That's just silly and asking for trouble for a start.
> 
> If for instance and in good humour (if England made it to the final) they use a ratio.
> 
> England could play there first game in Cardiff, 3 days later land in Sweden, Play a game there. Fly over to Holland. Play a game there. Move on to Austria in the R16 play there, Fly to Spain for Quarter-final, Fly back to England for Semi Final and Then fly back to Istanbul for the final.
> 
> All in 28 days.
> 
> How many fans are going to be able to afford that?? Platini doesn't seem to care about the financial implications for loyal fans.
> 
> It's ridiculous. 2/3 weeks in Turkey is a simple return flight booking plus accomodation.
> 
> Now it could turn into
> 
> Train to Cardiff
> Flight to Sweden
> Flight to Holland
> Flight to Austria
> Flight to Spain
> Flight to England
> Flight to Istanbul.
> 
> Effectively pricing out every fan on the continent to see every match if their team reaches the final.
> 
> My viewing would simply end after the trip to The Netherlands. I'd be skint.


The reality is that Platini is using it to rebuild his support base after clearly showing extreme bias in making sure france got euro 2016.


----------



## dj4life

Hopefully, Stockholm gets a chance to be a host city again.


----------



## Gekadisc

prahovaploiesti said:


> Do they have big chances after the 2018 WC?


they have very small chances. The only chance is if Pu will buy UEFA
1)they've already bought winter olympics and world cup. I don't think sport organisations will sell something else to Putin
2)WC and olimpics are going to be boycotted for human rights. In 2020 russians will have even fewer rights, unfortunaly
3)Idea of organising sport events is not popular in society.
4) Russia locates not even in europe. We are an asian country.

I think they should organize EURO in Brussels, Munich, London, Lyon, Athens, Amsterdam, Stocholm, Rome, Madrid, Baku, Budapest and Istanbul(Final)


----------



## hater

Olympic Stadium U/C in Baku
photo by jackues


----------



## riseaz

Azerbaijan is preparing to host 2015 first European games and Baku have great opportunity to be one of the 2020 cities.

Istanbul will host final match 100%


----------



## dande

It seems like "european games" are only important in Azerbaijan because nobody is talking about it in the rest of europe.


----------



## wiedi

*nightmare*



alwn said:


> my picks:
> 
> Group A: Baku, Yerevan
> Group B: Bucuresti, Sofia
> Group C: Budapest, Zagreb
> Group D: Solna, Kobenhavn
> Group E: Roma, Madrid
> Group F: London, Glasgow
> 
> semifinals+ final Istanbul



Group A would be a nightmare for all western europeans. At least for all the ones that are not billionaires! expensive and situated in the outskirts of "europe" (i never understood why these countries are european instead of asian, geographicly spoken)


----------



## parcdesprinces

alwn said:


> my picks:
> 
> Group A: Baku, Yerevan
> Group B: Bucuresti, Sofia
> Group C: Budapest, Zagreb
> Group D: Solna, Kobenhavn
> Group E: Roma, Madrid
> Group F: London, Glasgow
> 
> semifinals+ final Istanbul


Seems good, except the fact that personally I'd pick Amsterdam, Brussels or Dublin instead of Glasgow.


----------



## DaveyCakes

wiedi said:


> Group A would be a nightmare for all western europeans. At least for all the ones that are not billionaires! expensive and situated in the outskirts of "europe" (i never understood why these countries are european instead of asian, geographicly spoken)


So? Its the European Championship not the Western European Championship


----------



## riseaz

dande said:


> It seems like "european games" are only important in Azerbaijan because nobody is talking about it in the rest of europe.


the reason is so simple: because it's the first time and when we look to history of these games there is no one to be named a champion of the European games

maybe it's strange now but when Azerbaijan organized it you will be addicted to it 

you can also look this baku2015.com


----------



## dande

Yeah ok, I´ll keep an open mind but I was wondering if the games are sanctioned by IOC and sports federations? What is qualifying process for european games? Also another thing, I don´t hear about it from the athletes themselfs. People close to me are talking about different world championships and olympic games 2016 as their goal.


----------



## Kjello0

NO! NO! NO!


[url=http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/exclusive-uefa-plot-to-turn-the-euros-into-alternative-world-cup-8861335.html]Independant[/url] said:


> Revolutionary plans to expand the European Championship into a huge rival to the World Cup are being discussed by advisers close to Uefa’s president, Michel Platini. In the biggest change to international football for three decades, the revamped tournament would see national teams from other continents invited to take part. Under the new blueprint, which is another sign of the growing rift between Platini and Fifa’s president, Sepp Blatter, *Brazil, Argentina, Mexico and even Japan would be invited to compete against Europe’s leading teams at Euro 2020.*


----------



## George_D

Kjello0 said:


> NO! NO! NO!


 and brazil can become the european champion?? this expansion in terms of personal rivalry is totally stupidity


----------



## Hansadyret

So european nations should have to qualify then non european countries could just get invited in just like that. It's the "european championsship" for christ sake.

If this is true Platini have truely lost it and should lose his job. So fed up with Blatter and Platini doing what they can to ruin the game.


----------



## GEwinnen

Platini :bash::bash::bash::bash::bash:


----------



## PAO13

That sounds to dumb to be true.


----------



## Guest

What, people actually believe this?

Platini is a traditionalist in every sense of the word. You'd have to be very foolish to believe this.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/24423918

Uefa denies plans for larger European Championship



> Uefa has rejected a newspaper claim that it wants to revamp the European Championship to rival the World Cup.
> 
> The Independent on Sunday said the European governing body was considering expanding the tournament to include Brazil, Argentina, Mexico and Japan.
> A spokesman said: "Uefa is not aware of the plans mentioned in the story."


As for the Americas, I think its entirely plausible that the Copa America becomes a unified tournament between CONCACAF and CONMBEOL. Not a merger of the two for World Cup qualification, but just the Copa America.


----------



## alwn

wiedi said:


> Group A would be a nightmare for all western europeans. At least for all the ones that are not billionaires! expensive and situated in the outskirts of "europe" (i never understood why these countries are european instead of asian, geographicly spoken)




I disagree. Baku is a fast growing city, Yerevan is not such a bad choise. I didn't visit either Baku or Yerevan so maybe other forumers could give the right picture of these 2 cities and also how expensive would be a trip over there. I notice that Baku held Eurovision and everything was ok, modern infrastructure, hotels etc so I don't see any problem for teams playing in Baku or Yerevan. About fans it will be more difficult for them, but also more interesting. Personaly I would like to travel at the outskirts of europe to visit new sites rather to see the same old Western Europe. 
My picks followed a ratio 50-50 between W and E Europe, trying to couple close cities within the same group.
I really think Budapest and Istanbul deserved to be picked up following so many unsuccessful bids.


----------



## alwn

parcdesprinces said:


> Seems good, except the fact that personally I'd pick Amsterdam, Brussels or Dublin instead of Glasgow.[/QUOTE
> 
> Or Dublin- Glasgow because they never held
> Amsterdam- Bruxelles sounds like a remake of Euro 2000, so it's too soon.


----------



## 859098

alwn said:


> parcdesprinces said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems good, except the fact that personally I'd pick Amsterdam, Brussels or Dublin instead of Glasgow.[/QUOTE
> 
> Or Dublin- Glasgow because they never held
> Amsterdam- Bruxelles sounds like a remake of Euro 2000, so it's too soon.
> 
> 
> 
> Euro 2000 vs. Euro 2020 = 20 years.
> 
> So if we continue like that, Euro 2020 shouldn't pass through Belgium, The Netherlands, Portugal, Austria, Switzerland, Poland, Ukraine and France. Than let's ask to UEFA in what countries they want to organize Euro 2024, 2028, 2032, 2036 and 2040 as all those Euros are to soon after 2020.
Click to expand...


----------



## alwn

VinceB said:


> alwn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Euro 2000 vs. Euro 2020 = 20 years.
> 
> So if we continue like that, Euro 2020 shouldn't pass through Belgium, The Netherlands, Portugal, Austria, Switzerland, Poland, Ukraine and France. Than let's ask to UEFA in what countries they want to organize Euro 2024, 2028, 2032, 2036 and 2040 as all those Euros are to soon after 2020.
> 
> 
> 
> those were just my picks not UEFA view. I just believe it will be great to give the host to other countries not again the same picks. From my point 20 years is still too soon as other countries didn't get the chance to host.
Click to expand...


----------



## bouzanis

Bulgarian FA will also bid for the Euro, with a stadium to be built for the purpose


----------



## dvjmarcomatheus

I hate this choose to put a lot of country to host one euro. I preffer one country.


----------



## hater

dvjmarcomatheus said:


> I hate this choose to put a lot of country to host one euro. I preffer one country.


agreed , Euro 2020 will be very expensive for die hard fans


----------



## Tony E Architecture

I agree. One Country or Two Countries should Host. Two Countries if they can't Host by themselves. Countries like here in England and also, Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Russia and Turkey can Host themselves. Countries like Poland/Ukraine, Hungary/Romania or Bulgaria/Romania or Croatia/Hungary, Holland/Belgium, Sweden/Norway, Scotland/Wales or Scotland/Ireland or Ireland/Wales and Azerbaijan/Georgia would have to Co-Host. Also, I prefer a 16 team Final tournament. It's less complicated. 16 teams drawn into 4 groups of 4, top 2 go through to Quarter-Finals, then Semi-Finals, then the Final. Also, they should have a 3rd/4th Place Play-Off. So I think it should be a 16 team Final format, with 1 Host or 2 Co-Hosts if necessary.


----------



## VPSI

Official: CONI and FIGC choose Rome and Stadio Olimpico for UEFA Euro 2020.

http://vivoazzurro.it/it/news/l’annuncio-di-coni-e-figc-roma-candidata-uefa-euro-2020


----------



## Good Karma

VPSI said:


> Official: CONI and FIGC choose Rome and Stadio Olimpico for UEFA Euro 2020.
> 
> http://vivoazzurro.it/it/news/l’annuncio-di-coni-e-figc-roma-candidata-uefa-euro-2020


Hmm don't really like the Olimpico for Football, it's ashamed they can't put forward the San Siro or Juventus' stadium.


----------



## Blackhavvk

Tony E Architecture said:


> Eastern Europe:
> 
> Baku Olympic Stadium, Baku, Azerbaijan (68,700 Seats).
> Olympic Stadium, Kiev, Ukraine (70,050 Seats).
> 
> 
> .


Kiev has applied only to the final Package. I think it is St. Petersburg instead of Kiev.


----------



## Tony E Architecture

Blackhavvk said:


> Kiev has applied only to the final Package. I think it is St. Petersburg instead of Kiev.


I don't think France and Russia should Host matches. They have the UEFA Euro 2016 and 2018 Fifa World Cup.


----------



## George_D

Tony E Architecture said:


> I don't think France and Russia should Host matches. They have the UEFA Euro 2016 and 2018 Fifa World Cup.


i agree


----------



## jackass94

Baku Olympic Stadium is terrible for watching football (even worse than other athletics arenas, like in Berlin or Kyiv), I don't think this is a good decision


----------



## Tony E Architecture

Ok. So the question is, should UEFA Euro 2020 include Stadiums with an Athletics Track?


----------



## Good Karma

Tony E Architecture said:


> Ok. So the question is, should UEFA Euro 2020 include Stadiums with an Athletics Track?


Considering there will be vast array of stadia to chose from without athletics tracks they should pick those without. It would be scandalous if a stadium with a track gets chosen ahead of one without.


----------



## Tony E Architecture

Ok. Here are the 13 Stadiums I would choose that *haven't* got an Athletics Track: This would mean probably excluding Eastern Europe, as most of there top Stadiums have Athletics Tracks and Russia is the only Country that will not have Athletics Tracks by UEFA Euro 2020 (Because of the 2018 Fifa World Cup) and Russia and France shouldn't get to hold matches during UEFA Euro 2020 because of their Hosting of the UEFA Euro 2016 and 2018 Fifa World Cup.

Western Europe:

Wembley Stadium, here in London, England (90,000 Seats) - Final and Semi-Final Venue.

Millennium Stadium, Cardiff, Wales (74,000 Seats) - Minor Renovations.

Aviva Stadium, Dublin, Republic of Ireland (51,700 Seats).


Southern Europe:

Nou Camp, Barcelona, Spain (105,000 Seats) Renovated and Expanded.

Stadium da Luz, Lisbon, Portugal (65,000 Seats).

New Roma Stadium, Rome, Italy (55,000 Seats).


Central Europe:

Allianz Arena, Munich, Germany (71,000 Seats).

New Puskas Ferenc Stadium, Budapest, Hungary (65,000 Seats).

National Stadium, Bucharest, Romania (55,600 Seats). Minor Renovations.


Northern Europe:

New National Stadium, Oslo, Norway (55,000 Seats). 

Friends Arena, Stockholm (Solna), Sweden (50,000 Seats).


Eastern Europe:

Central Stadium, Minsk, Belarus (40,000 Seats) Currently under Renovation and Expansion.

Astana Arena, Astana, Kazakhstan (30,000 Seats).

Note: If you wanted to exclude Astana Arena in Astana, Kazakhstan, you could include the Turk Telekom Arena in Istanbul, Turkey. Remember, Ataturk Olympic Stadium in Istanbul, Turkey has an Athletics Track. 

Some might argue about Astana Arena Hosting matches, but if we want it spread in all corners of Europe with Stadiums without Athletics Tracks, then Eastern Europe is limited and Belarus will have a Renovated and Expanded Central Stadium without an Athletics Track and Kazakhstan has the Astana Arena without an Athletics Track. Like stated before, I left France and Russia out because they will Host the UEFA Euro 2016 and 2018 Fifa World Cup, which is close to UEFA Euro 2020, which is why Luzhniki is not included (Which won't have an Athletics Track after Renovation and Expansion) and Stade de France (That has retractable Seating).


----------



## jackass94

there's Donbass arena in Ukraine, this is a top-class stadium so I guess it should be used in Euro. If Russian stadiums can't be chosen, the only eastern European country with good football stadiums is Ukraine

Donbass arena (52 187)









there are also some 30 000 stadiums without a track there


And the Minsk' stadium reconstruction was cancelled


----------



## ayanamikun

Greece has won a euro championship quite recently , is ranked 10th in the world and 6th in Europe ahead of England, and hasn't host a football event. Yet none of you include OAKA which one would thought, after all that, to be the most probable venue of them all.


----------



## Kjello0

Tony E Architecture said:


> Northern Europe:
> 
> New National Stadium, Oslo, Norway (55,000 Seats).


Will not happen, will not happen, and will not happen.

It's just three years since the NFF scrapped the previous plans of a new stadium. And decided to expand Ullevaal instead.

And at the moment the national team struggle to fill even half of the 25,000 seat Ullevaal. Why would they then want a 50,000 seat stadium? Any talks about a new stadium in Oslo is put on hold for at least the next 10 years.

Stockholm and Copenhagen (38,000 seats) will be representing Northern Europe.


----------



## Tony E Architecture

Kjello0 said:


> Will not happen, will not happen, and will not happen.
> 
> It's just three years since the NFF scrapped the previous plans of a new stadium. And decided to expand Ullevaal instead.
> 
> And at the moment the national team struggle to fill even half of the 25,000 seat Ullevaal. Why would they then want a 50,000 seat stadium? Any talks about a new stadium in Oslo is put on hold for at least the next 10 years.
> 
> Stockholm and Copenhagen (38,000 seats) will be representing Northern Europe.


If Oslo gets the 2022 Winter Olympics and Paralympics, they will have at least a 40,000 Seater Stadium. Also, Parken Stadium would require a Renovation.


----------



## ReNaHtEiM

Tony E Architecture said:


> If Oslo gets the 2022 Winter Olympics and Paralympics, they will have at least a 40,000 Seater Stadium. Also, Parken Stadium would require a Renovation.



Oslo will not build a national stadium just for the opening ceremony. They will use Holmenkollen stadium.


----------



## Tony E Architecture

Ok. Just to make it clear, here are the Bidding Countries:

- Here in England. (Here in London).
- Germany. (Munich).
- Spain. (Barcelona, Madrid and Bilbao).
- Republic of Ireland. (Dublin).
- Holland. (Amsterdam).
- Belgium. (Brussels).
- Wales. (Cardiff).
- Turkey. (Istanbul).
- Ukraine. (Kiev and Donetsk).
- Armenia. (Yerevan).
- Belarus. (Minsk).
- Bulgaria. (Sofia).
- Azerbaijan. (Baku).
- Croatia. (Zagreb and Split).
- Czech Republic. (Prague).
- Denmark. (Copenhagen).
- France. (Lyon).
- Greece. (Athens).
- Hungary. (Budapest).
- Israel. (Jerusalem).
- Italy. (Rome).
- Kazakhstan. (Astana).
- Macedonia FYR. (Skopje).
- Poland. (Warsaw and Chorzow).
- Portugal. (Lisbon and Porto).
- Romania. (Bucharest).
- Russia. (St Petersburg).
- Scotland. (Glasgow).
- Serbia. (Belgrade).
- Sweden. (Stockholm (Solna)).
- Switzerland. (Basel).

Right. This is who I would choose now that we have the full list of Candidates:

Western Europe:

Wembley Stadium, London, England. (90,000 Seats). Final and Semi-Final Venue.

Millennium Stadium, Cardiff, Wales. (74,000 Seats). Minor Renovations.

Aviva Stadium, Dublin, Republic of Ireland. (51,700 Seats). 


Southern Europe:

Nou Camp, Barcelona, Spain. (105,000 Seats). Renovated and Expanded.

Stadium da Luz, Lisbon, Portugal. (65,000 Seats).

New Roma Stadium, Rome, Italy. (55,000 Seats).


Central Europe:

Allianz Arena, Munich, Germany. (71,000 Seats).

New Puskas Ferenc Stadium, Budapest, Hungary. (65,000 Seats).

National Stadium, Bucharest, Romania. (55,600 Seats). Minor Renovations.


Northern Europe:

New National Stadium, Oslo, Norway. (55,000 Seats). Being Built is possible.

Friends Arena, Stockholm (Solna), Sweden. (50,000 Seats).


Eastern Europe:

Turk Telekom Arena, Istanbul, Turkey. (53,000 Seats).

Donbass Arena, Donetsk, Ukraine. (52,000 Seats).

Note: I left out Athens because of the Running Track with poor sightlines for Football. Same goes for the Olympic Stadium in Kiev, Ukraine. It might feel like I've repeated myself, but I haven't. I added some different Stadiums.


----------



## bongo-anders

A new stadium in Oslo will not happen as stated before.

I´m thinking that both Stockholm and Copenhagen will be selected from the nordic countries.


Copenhagen will probably need a smaller renovation to the 3 older stands but in 2020 it will have a metro station next door (M3 circle line) so the logistics will not be a problem.

There is also plenty of hotel rooms and a huge international airport if UEFA makes decisions based upon that.

+ There is a little thing called EURO 1992 champions, I think that UEFA should honour that. :cheers:


----------



## nillie

That design for Brussels looks bland and boring, especially the facade. I hope they go with something a little more radical, if we hope to get the opening match...


----------



## Thermo

nillie said:


> That design for Brussels looks bland and boring, especially the facade. I hope they go with something a little more radical, if we hope to get the opening match...


There is no final design yet. These pictures are just examples of how things 'could be'...


----------



## 859098

1 city per country, 13 countries.


----------



## VPSI

Federazione Italiana Giuoco Calcio (FIGC) has delivered to UEFA the bid for UEFA Euro 2020.































































































































http://www.figc.it/it/204/2523891/2014/04/News.shtml


----------



## Tony E Architecture

Ok, these are the Countries/Cities still in the Bidding Process:

Here in England (Here in London).
Spain (Barcelona, Madrid and Bilbao).
Republic of Ireland (Dublin).
Germany (Munich).
Wales (Cardiff).
Scotland (Glasgow).
Holland (Amsterdam).
Hungary (Budapest).
Sweden (Stockholm (Solna)).
Turkey (Istanbul).
Ukraine (Kiev and Donetsk).
Armenia (Yerevan).
Belarus (Minsk).
Azerbaijan (Baku).
Bulgaria (Sofia).
Croatia (Zagreb and Split).
Denmark (Copenhagen).
France (Lyon).
Greece (Athens).
Israel (Jerusalem).
Italy (Rome).
Kazakhstan (Astana).
Macedonia Fyr (Skopje).
Romania (Bucharest).
Russia (St Petersburg).
Serbia (Belgrade).
Switzerland (Basel).

Ok. IMO, France and Russia shouldn't be chosen, as they will Host the recent UEFA Euro 2016 and 2018 Fifa World Cup. Also, Stadiums with an Athletics Track should only be chosen if in desperate need, because of sightlines IMO. These are who I would choose:

Western Europe:

Wembley Stadium, Here in London, England (90,000 Seats). Final and Semi-Final Venue.

Aviva Stadium, Dublin, Republic of Ireland (51,700 Seats).

Millennium Stadium, Cardiff, Wales (75,000 Seats). Minor Renovations.

Hampden Park, Glasgow, Scotland (53,000 Seats). Minor Renovations.

Amsterdam Arena, Amsterdam, Holland (57,000 Seats). Renovated and Expanded.


Southern Europe:

Nou Camp, Barcelona, Spain (105,000 Seats). Renovated and Expanded.

New Roma Stadium, Rome, Italy (55,000 Seats). 

Turk Telekom Arena, Istanbul, Turkey (53,000 Seats).


Central Europe:

Allianz Arena, Munich, Germany (71,000 Seats).

New Puskas Ferenc Stadium, Budapest, Hungary (65,000 Seats).


Northern Europe:

Friends Arena, Stockholm (Solna), Sweden (50,000 Seats).


Eastern Europe:

Donbass Arena, Donetsk, Ukraine (52,000 Seats).

Astana Arena, Astana, Kazakhstan (30,000 Seats).


This is just my opinion.


----------



## jackass94

I'd rather choose Bucharest instead of Astana


----------



## 3tmk

They should be playing the asian cup and you want them to host a Euro game? :lol:
In that case, France should send a bid for Fort de France or Saint Denis, it would be awesome to have a game in Martinique or Reunion!


----------



## lwa

Tony E Architecture said:


> Ok, these are the Countries/Cities still in the Bidding Process:
> 
> Here in England (Here in London).
> Spain (Barcelona, Madrid and Bilbao).
> Republic of Ireland (Dublin).
> Germany (Munich).
> Wales (Cardiff).
> Scotland (Glasgow).
> Holland (Amsterdam).
> Hungary (Budapest).
> Sweden (Stockholm (Solna)).
> Turkey (Istanbul).
> Ukraine (Kiev and Donetsk).
> Armenia (Yerevan).
> Belarus (Minsk).
> Azerbaijan (Baku).
> Bulgaria (Sofia).
> Croatia (Zagreb and Split).
> Denmark (Copenhagen).
> France (Lyon).
> Greece (Athens).
> Israel (Jerusalem).
> Italy (Rome).
> Kazakhstan (Astana).
> Macedonia Fyr (Skopje).
> Romania (Bucharest).
> Russia (St Petersburg).
> Serbia (Belgrade).
> Switzerland (Basel).
> 
> Ok. IMO, France and Russia shouldn't be chosen, as they will Host the recent UEFA Euro 2016 and 2018 Fifa World Cup. Also, Stadiums with an Athletics Track should only be chosen if in desperate need, because of sightlines IMO. These are who I would choose:
> 
> Western Europe:
> 
> Wembley Stadium, Here in London, England (90,000 Seats). Final and Semi-Final Venue.
> 
> Aviva Stadium, Dublin, Republic of Ireland (51,700 Seats).
> 
> Millennium Stadium, Cardiff, Wales (75,000 Seats). Minor Renovations.
> 
> Hampden Park, Glasgow, Scotland (53,000 Seats). Minor Renovations.
> 
> Amsterdam Arena, Amsterdam, Holland (57,000 Seats). Renovated and Expanded.
> 
> 
> Southern Europe:
> 
> Nou Camp, Barcelona, Spain (105,000 Seats). Renovated and Expanded.
> 
> New Roma Stadium, Rome, Italy (55,000 Seats).
> 
> Turk Telekom Arena, Istanbul, Turkey (53,000 Seats).
> 
> 
> Central Europe:
> 
> Allianz Arena, Munich, Germany (71,000 Seats).
> 
> New Puskas Ferenc Stadium, Budapest, Hungary (65,000 Seats).
> 
> 
> Northern Europe:
> 
> Friends Arena, Stockholm (Solna), Sweden (50,000 Seats).
> 
> 
> Eastern Europe:
> 
> Donbass Arena, Donetsk, Ukraine (52,000 Seats).
> 
> Astana Arena, Astana, Kazakhstan (30,000 Seats).
> 
> 
> This is just my opinion.


Don't think there is anyway all 4 British Isles bids will be successful - 3 at a push (and only if one is the semi's/final). I would rather this tournament was taken to places that may struggle to host outright, so I'd drop England leaving 2 of Scotland/Wales/RoI. Would take more than minor refurb to get rid of the athletics track, but I don't see the big issue there TBH (although Hampden isn't a great venue)

Still, facillities in the South stand at Hampden are among the best in Europe (UEFA have said they would come back in a shot for EL finals - so hopefully that will stand us in good stead). As for the other home country - I'd rather Dublin, on the basis the MS pitch is consistently awful.


Other than that, would like to see places like Bucharest, Skopje, Copenhagen and Stockholm get games.


----------



## 859098

Tony E Architecture said:


> Ok, these are the Countries/Cities still in the Bidding Process:
> 
> Here in England (Here in London).
> Spain (Barcelona, Madrid and Bilbao).
> Republic of Ireland (Dublin).
> Germany (Munich).
> Wales (Cardiff).
> Scotland (Glasgow).
> Holland (Amsterdam).
> Hungary (Budapest).
> Sweden (Stockholm (Solna)).
> Turkey (Istanbul).
> Ukraine (Kiev and Donetsk).
> Armenia (Yerevan).
> Belarus (Minsk).
> Azerbaijan (Baku).
> Bulgaria (Sofia).
> Croatia (Zagreb and Split).
> Denmark (Copenhagen).
> France (Lyon).
> Greece (Athens).
> Israel (Jerusalem).
> Italy (Rome).
> Kazakhstan (Astana).
> Macedonia Fyr (Skopje).
> Romania (Bucharest).
> Russia (St Petersburg).
> Serbia (Belgrade).
> Switzerland (Basel).
> 
> Ok. IMO, France and Russia shouldn't be chosen, as they will Host the recent UEFA Euro 2016 and 2018 Fifa World Cup. Also, Stadiums with an Athletics Track should only be chosen if in desperate need, because of sightlines IMO. These are who I would choose:
> 
> Western Europe:
> 
> Wembley Stadium, Here in London, England (90,000 Seats). Final and Semi-Final Venue.
> 
> Aviva Stadium, Dublin, Republic of Ireland (51,700 Seats).
> 
> Millennium Stadium, Cardiff, Wales (75,000 Seats). Minor Renovations.
> 
> Hampden Park, Glasgow, Scotland (53,000 Seats). Minor Renovations.
> 
> Amsterdam Arena, Amsterdam, Holland (57,000 Seats). Renovated and Expanded.
> 
> 
> Southern Europe:
> 
> Nou Camp, Barcelona, Spain (105,000 Seats). Renovated and Expanded.
> 
> New Roma Stadium, Rome, Italy (55,000 Seats).
> 
> Turk Telekom Arena, Istanbul, Turkey (53,000 Seats).
> 
> 
> Central Europe:
> 
> Allianz Arena, Munich, Germany (71,000 Seats).
> 
> New Puskas Ferenc Stadium, Budapest, Hungary (65,000 Seats).
> 
> 
> Northern Europe:
> 
> Friends Arena, Stockholm (Solna), Sweden (50,000 Seats).
> 
> 
> Eastern Europe:
> 
> Donbass Arena, Donetsk, Ukraine (52,000 Seats).
> 
> Astana Arena, Astana, Kazakhstan (30,000 Seats).
> 
> 
> This is just my opinion.


Where in your list is Brussels?


----------



## jackass94

in my opinion, Euro2020 should be host by countries that love football but can't host the whole tournament now by themselves like Czech Rep., Greece, Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia, Croatia, Ireland, Belgium, Switzerland, e.t.c...


----------



## Fasterovich

I think the stadium in St. Pete with cost of construction at $ 1.1 billion must take EURO 2020:


----------



## Junkie

Why not an ex-yu country to get at least one place? I think Zagreb or Skopje as Belgrade's main stadium is in a bad condition.


----------



## Gombos

jackass94 said:


> I'd rather choose Bucharest instead of Astana


Kazakhstan is out anyway.


----------



## nillie

Imho for Western Europe i think it will be Munich and Brussels.

Amsterdam Arena project is limited to 56k expansion as far as i know, where as Brussels will have at least 60k capacity.

Lyon will host many matches at EURO 2016

I hope Brussels gets selected, but should they select Amsterdam instead, its not so bad. Amsterdam is more fun city then Brussels tbh, and not so far away for me


----------



## www.sercan.de

Which cities are bidding for the final 4?


----------



## nbcee

Gombos said:


> I am pretty sure that Romania (excellent hosting of the 2012 Europa League Final, actually the only Eastern European country on the list alongside Hungary if the Hungarian government guarantees)


Believe me this government likes to build stadiums


----------



## Gombos

nbcee said:


> Believe me this government likes to build stadiums


you need at least around 150 million euros! and +45k. that's why you proposed Budapest and new NT stadium.. what does Nemzetisport say? it's Friday!


----------



## parcdesprinces

Apparently the French football federation president announced today that France (Lyon), is going to withdraw its bid for Euro 2020. He said that the federation prefers to focus on a bid for the 2019 women's world cup instead.


----------



## nbcee

Gombos said:


> you need at least around 150 million euros! and +45k. that's why you proposed Budapest and new NT stadium.. what does Nemzetisport say? it's Friday!


Don't worry we have already submitted our bid yesterday (like I said it here). The New Puskás Stadium will have a capacity of ~65 k and it will cost us 70-90 B HUF ~ 240-300 M EUR.



parcdesprinces said:


> Apparently the French football federation president announced today that France (Lyon), is going to withdraw its bid for Euro 2020. He said that the federation prefers to focus on a bid for the 2019 women's world cup instead.


And you guys will host Euro 2016 too.


----------



## Gombos

nbcee said:


> Don't worry we have already submitted our bid yesterday (like I said it here). The New Puskás Stadium will have a capacity of ~65 k.


then it's likely Hungary-Romania to be the pair for Eastern Europe! :cheers:


----------



## nbcee

Gombos said:


> then it's likely Hungary-Romania to be the pair for Eastern Europe! :cheers:


Well cheers on that :cheers:

BTW a few years ago there were some plans of a joint Hungarian-Romanian bid before this format was announced.


----------



## Gombos

:banana: :banana: :banana:


----------



## JanVL

Polish media say that most has been decided for EURO 2020. 

The semi-finals and final would be in Turkey. 

Countries like Armenia, Serbia and Bulgaria will be organising a game as well. 

The final of EURO 2024 would be in Germany. 

Poland has cancelled its bid for EURO2020 because it will organise EURO U21 2017.

http://m.onet.pl/sport/pilka-nozna,t3k4q


----------



## Tony E Architecture

lwa said:


> Don't think there is anyway all 4 British Isles bids will be successful - 3 at a push (and only if one is the semi's/final). I would rather this tournament was taken to places that may struggle to host outright, so I'd drop England leaving 2 of Scotland/Wales/RoI. Would take more than minor refurb to get rid of the athletics track, but I don't see the big issue there TBH (although Hampden isn't a great venue)
> 
> Still, facillities in the South stand at Hampden are among the best in Europe (UEFA have said they would come back in a shot for EL finals - so hopefully that will stand us in good stead). As for the other home country - I'd rather Dublin, on the basis the MS pitch is consistently awful.
> 
> 
> Other than that, would like to see places like Bucharest, Skopje, Copenhagen and Stockholm get games.


Can't leave us out! Wembley should get the Final and Semi-Finals!


----------



## Gombos

@ JanVL

Turkey has just pulled out.


----------



## dinamo_zagreb

Junkie said:


> Why not an ex-yu country to get at least one place? I think Zagreb or Skopje as Belgrade's main stadium is in a bad condition.


*Stadium in Zagreb* is falling apart, they only changed seats few years back with installing undersoil heating - spent 10 M euros on that :nuts: so it looks just a bit decent. There were thousands of plans (stadium 1, new; stadium 2 known as Blue Volcano, new; stadium 3 reconstruction; stadium 4 reconstruction, there were talks (Zagreb mayor says ten years ago: you can spit in my face if we don't build stadium by 2006 - he's still mayor), but nothing beside before mentioned facelift.

*Stadium in Belgrade* is in bad state also, they plan to build new one for ages now, but no moves beside talks and "plans", just like Zagreb.

*Both countries pulled out* as I said before, citing lack of funds (although different story was just few weeks back)

*Stadium in Skopje* is an awesome venue after huge reconstruction, but they are not bidding.


----------



## Galandar

Turkey took a wise desicion and withdrew. They will concentrate on EURO 2024 bid which they deserve as no one else.


----------



## flierfy

The Guardian dropped a remarkable line in an article today:


The Guardian said:


> There had been a question mark over the Welsh bid as *cities needed to nominate two airports to service rival sets of fans*, but the FAW has signed agreements which would use both Cardiff and Bristol airports. "We believe that we have a strong and compelling proposition," the FAW chief executive, Jonathan Ford, said.


This rule sounds rather peculiar as many cities, which hosted successfully games of World Cup or Euro finals before, are served by single airport only. It seems to be one of these arbitrary rules which can only be made up in the ivory tower of the UEFA.


----------



## nbcee

Galandar said:


> Turkey took a wise desicion and withdrew. They will concentrate on EURO 2024 bid which they deserve as no one else.


Sad to hear that but glad to be in Istanbul in 2024.


flierfy said:


> The Guardian dropped a remarkable line in an article today:
> 
> This rule sounds rather peculiar as many cities, which hosted successfully games of World Cup or Euro finals before, are served by single airport only. It seems to be one of these arbitrary rules which can only be made up in the ivory tower of the UEFA.


Don't worry because two terminals of the same airport will be enough as long as fans of rival teams can be separated.


----------



## Gombos

the final decision on the appointment of the 13 hosts of UEFA EURO 2020 will be taken by the UEFA Executive Committee on 19 September in Geneva.


----------



## hugenholz

France, Switzerland and Turkey pulled out today... Croatia and Poland already did the same thing the last week. It looks like UEFA demands really strict rules, privileges and high quality standards. I wonder if most of the bidbooks were handed over in time and with all the required documents and signatures. I expect that more countries to pull out or rejected as a candidate.


----------



## WFlnsider




----------



## www.sercan.de

YESSSSSSSSS.
Turkey is out


----------



## wojtek354

who is stil bidding ?


----------



## jackass94

www.sercan.de said:


> YESSSSSSSSS.
> Turkey is out


Turkey MUST host a Euro or WC, I hope 2024 is yours :cheers:


----------



## www.sercan.de

Yes. I am so glad that our dumb TFF took this wise decision.

They are building so many new stadiums in Turkey, they should host an own tournament.


IMO France is out, because of EURO 2016.

And Final in London..


----------



## dinamo_zagreb

www.sercan.de said:


> YESSSSSSSSS.
> Turkey is out


I am happy too, you deserve to host entire tournament, not just final four.


----------



## 3tmk

So you want the Euros played in the middle east?
hno:

What a fiasco this is turning out to be, countries withdrawing left and right.


----------



## ReNaHtEiM

How many cities are left now? 5?
:goodnight

Hopefully Platini falls massively on his face here that he is forced to shelve dumb ideas like the Nations League.


----------



## eagle in sky

3tmk said:


> So you want the Euros played in the middle east?
> hno:
> 
> What a fiasco this is turning out to be, countries withdrawing left and right.


If Turkey win 2024, cities in the western Turkey will host the tournament.


Aegean, Mediterranean and Marmara districts(Western Turkey) is more European rather than Middle Eastern


----------



## 859098

eagle in sky said:


> If Turkey win 2024, cities in the western Turkey will host the tournament.
> 
> 
> Aegean, Mediterranean and Marmara districts(Western Turkey) is more European rather than Middle Eastern


Good to hear that Turkey will focus on Euro 2024. What a great opportunity for this amazing country.


----------



## Turkiiish

OFFICIAL : 

*Turkey pulls out of race to host Euro 2020
Turkey candidate to host Euro 2024*

Official : https://www.tff.org/default.aspx?pageID=285&ftxtID=20454


----------



## WFlnsider

More photos from visit and presentation of St. Petersburg:


----------



## Turkiiish

*Switzerland, Poland, France and Turkey *on Friday pulled out of the race to host matches at Euro 2020, the first continent-wide edition of Europe's top international football tournament.

*OFFICIAL* : 
Turkey pulls out of race to host Euro 2020
Turkey candidate to host Euro 2024
https://www.tff.org/default.aspx?pag...5&ftxtID=20454


----------



## Turkiiish

GENEVA - Switzerland, France and Turkey on Friday pulled out of the race to host matches at Euro 2020, the first continent-wide edition of Europe's top international football tournament.

The Swiss Football Federation announced that it had decided not pursue its bid to have the St. Jakob-Park stadium in Basel included on the 13-venue list due to be drawn up by the sport's European governing body UEFA.

SFF president Peter Gillieron said the fact that Switzerland hosted Euro 2008 along with neighbouring Austria was a major factor.

"We felt that countries which have organised the European championships over the past 12 years had, at best, a slim chance of being picked for Euro 2020," he said in a statement.

As a result, said SFF secretary general Alex Miescher, the federation did not feel able to make the financial investment nor to muster support from local and national politicians.

Later Turkey abandoned their bid to try and host the 2020 semi-finals and final, preferring instead to try and win the right to host Euro 2024.

We believe Turkey is at a point where it can undertake the entire tournament," a Turkish Football FRederation statement announced.

The federation said Turkey would soon have 13 stadiums in compliance with the "capacity criteria of the European Football Championship."

"When this is the situation, Turkey is a country that can host such a tournament on its own," it added.

"Therefore, our board has decided today not to bid for the UEFA EURO 2020 semi-finals and final."

The federation said it would now focus on "a campaign for candidacy to host the entire Euro 2024".

Earlier Euro 2016 hosts France pulled out of 2020 with their federation president Noel Le Graet declaring Lyon would not be proposed as a candidate city.

Already this week the Czech Republic and Euro 2012 co-host Poland both withdrew, but Belgium confirmed that Brussels would officially be presented as a candidate city.

UEFA will announce the 13 host cities in September as president Michel Platini puts into place the unprecedented new format across the continent.

Germany, which staged Euro 1988 and the 2006 World Cup, has already entered the Euro 2020 fray, with Munich beating Berlin as the German Football Association's (DFB) candidate city.

The Germans have applied for one of two packages and are hoping to either host three group matches and a quarter-final or are looking to hold the semi-finals and final in the Bavarian capital.

"We are sure we have a strong bid and hope to convince UEFA with our world-class facilities and the enthusiasm of the fans in Germany," said DFB general-secretary Helmut Sandrock.

http://www.enca.com/sport/swiss-turkish-french-cities-pull-out-euro-2020


----------



## Turkiiish

Baku gives UEFA bid book to host matches of Euro-2020

Baku has bid to host the European Football Championship 2020, for which President Ilham Aliyev on 22 may 2013 signed a Decree on events to Baku's bidding to host the event.

According to the Decree, the Azerbaijan Football Federations Association (AFFA) was instructed to prepare the bid book and engage in organizational issues.

AFFA has already prepared the bid book and presented the UEFA earlier than the appointed date.

Cities to host Euro-2020 matches will be known in September this year.

News.Az


----------



## Ladiesman020

So how many are left


----------



## hugenholz

Ladiesman020 said:


> So how many are left


25

I think these are the groups in which the UEFA will pick at least 2 countries (depending on the packages)

Sweden
Denmark

Belgium
Germany
Netherlands

England
Wales
Scotland
Ireland

Spain
Italy
Greece
Israel

Ukraine
Russia
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Kazakhstan

Bulgaria
Romania
Hungary
Serbia
Macedonia


----------



## vanjaz

Minsk claims to be holding three matches of the group round and match 1/8 finals of Euro 2020.

The National stadium in Minsk is claimed to be built by the end of 2018
the capacity will be 33 000


----------



## nbcee

hugenholz said:


> 25
> 
> I think these are the groups in which the UEFA will pick at least 2 countries (depending on the packages)
> 
> Sweden
> Denmark
> 
> Belgium
> Germany
> Netherlands
> 
> England
> Wales
> Scotland
> Ireland
> 
> Spain
> Italy
> Greece
> Israel
> 
> Ukraine
> Russia
> Armenia
> Azerbaijan
> Belarus
> Kazakhstan
> 
> Bulgaria
> Romania
> Hungary
> Romania
> Serbia
> Macedonia


The Scandinavian group is kinda obvious  And you have written _Romania _twice.

Anyway I'm not sure about the Belgrade bid though. Can someone from Serbia please confirm this?


----------



## RobH

*Hold on, it seems we've only got TWO bids for the finals package....England V Germany....*



> *The member associations/cities that submitted bid dossiers for the standard package are, in alphabetical order;*
> 
> Azerbaijan/Baku, Belarus/Minsk, Belgium/Brussels, Bulgaria/Sofia, Denmark/Copenhagen, England/London, FYROM/Skopje, Germany/Munich, Hungary/Budapest, Israel/Jerusalem, Italy/Rome, Netherlands/Amsterdam, Republic of Ireland/Dublin, Romania/Bucharest, Russia/Saint Petersburg, Scotland/Glasgow, Spain/Bilbao, Sweden/Stockholm, Wales/Cardiff.
> 
> *The member associations/cities that submitted bid dossiers for the semi-finals/final package are, in alphabetical order;*
> 
> England/London and Germany/Munich.


http://www.uefa.org/mediaservices/mediareleases/newsid=2096100.html


----------



## Junkie

Skopje is bidding. I think we have better stadium than capitals of Serbia and Bulgaria so UEFA should consider this. Skopje also has new airport terminal build in 2012, and many new hotels, including some brands that are currently u/c.


----------



## www.sercan.de

Just Wembley at Englands bids?


----------



## Kobo

Did Greece pull out? I really wanted Athens to get the final.


----------



## DaveyCakes

Hard to pick between London and Munich for the finals. Bigger capacity may $wing it for Wembley.

19 bids for 13 spots so 6 miss out. Bilbao, Baku and Jerusalem are a long way from any of the others, but its UEFA so who knows!

A few obvious pairs for groups: Stockholm & Copenhagen; Amsterdam & Brussels; any number of combinations from London (if it doesn't get the final), Dublin, Glasgow, Cardiff; Sofia & Skopje or Bucharest; St. Petersburg & Minsk, although I'm sure St. Petersburg would have preferred Helsinki to stay in the running;

Munich could be paired with Budapest if it doesn't get the final? Or how about London and Brussels?


----------



## hugenholz

nbcee said:


> The Scandinavian group is kinda obvious * And you have written Romania twice.
> *
> Anyway I'm not sure about the Belgrade bid though. Can someone from Serbia please confirm this?


Corrected


----------



## Gombos

19 bids received for UEFA EURO 2020

*standard & semifinals/final:*
Germany (Munich) 
England (London) 

*standard:*
Ireland (Dublin) 
Scotland (Glasgow) 
Wales (Cardiff) 
Denmark (Copenhagen) 
Sweden (Stockholm) 
Spain (Bilbao) 
Belgium (Brussels) 
Holland (Amsterdam) 
Italy (Rome) 
Hungary (Budapest) 
Romania (Bucharest) 
Bulgaria (Sofia) 
Macedonia (Skopje) 
Belarus (Minsk) 
Russia (St. Petersburg) 
Israel (Jerusalem) 
Azerbaijan (Baku)


----------



## Tony E Architecture

Wembley for the Final and Semi-Finals!


----------



## Leedsrule

I really hope Wembley don't get the final and semi's but they almost certainly will. 

All of you lot who said you didn't want more than 1 home nation to host... well there's a high chance of all of us hosting now. We all have stadiums that hold over 50k and there aren't that many countries with 50k+ stadiums bidding.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

Leedsrule said:


> I really hope Wembley don't get the final and semi's but they almost certainly will.
> 
> All of you lot who said you didn't want more than 1 home nation to host... well there's a high chance of all of us hosting now. We all have stadiums that hold over 50k and there aren't that many countries with 50k+ stadiums bidding.


I don't really mind if Wembley gets it or not but do feel Munich would be a small venue for the final considering you got a larger one to pick from. I would've preferred if England held out to host a whole tournament like Turkey are now doing. 

Now that a lot of the rival bids have pulled out I can see up to 3 of the home nations hosting (maybe even all 4). Would be the closest thing to a UK & Ireland tournament which would be pretty cool.


----------



## Kjello0

SE9 said:


> *Stadia 80k - 100k:* 1 (London)
> 
> *Stadia 60k - 80k:* 3 (Rome, Cardiff, Budapest)
> 
> *Stadia 50k - 60k:* 5 (Bucharest, Dublin, Stockholm, Amsterdam, Bilbao)
> 
> *Stadia under 50k:* 3 (Copenhagen, Sofia, Skopje)


Just three mistakes with your proposal.

1. Glasgow will for sure get a spot. Leaving Dublin and Cardiff to fight over the second spot in a "British isles group"

2. Munich will also most likely get a spot. And create a Munich - Budapest group.

3. You can't have both Sofia and Skopje as both is proposing venues smaller than 50,000 seats. Copenhagen is already "occupying" one of the smaller than 50,000 venues. And Sofia and Skopje will have to fight over the last under 50,000 venue. And create a group with Bucharest.

Also, you need 4 stadiums with a capacity of at least 60,000 to host the four quarter finales. Your proposal lack one of those.

Stadium criteria.

1 stadium with at least 70,000 seats for semifinals and the final.
4 stadiums with at least 60,000 seats to host 3 group matches and one quarter final.
6 stadiums with at least 50,000 seats to host 3 group matches and one round of 16 match.
2 stadiums with at least 30,000 seats to host 3 group matches and one round of 16 match.

Semifinals and final (70,000 +): London
3 group matches and one quarter final (60,000 +): Munich, Budapest, Rome and Cardiff.
3 group matches and one round of 16 match (50,000 +): Stockholm, Glasgow, Amsterdam, Bilbao, Brussels and Bucharest.
3 group matches and one round of 16 match (30,000 +): Copenhagen and Sofia.

Groups
A: Glasgow and Cardiff
B: Amsterdam and Brussels
C: Bilbao and Rome
D: Sofia and Bucharest
E: Budapest and Munich
F: Copenhagen and Stockholm


----------



## Turkiiish

Official WEB SITE - BAKU 2020 : http://www.affa.az/2020/


----------



## Gombos

I have my doubts regarding this EURO when we talk about let's say under 45k-capacity stadiums because I remember a statement of our former federation boss who was also in the UEFA Committee (they have decided to skip Cluj Arena 31k, the new stadium of Cluj-Napoca). he said something about a special EURO (this one) with arenas of big capacities (at least 50k or around). but now good luck to all! the things can change. Bulgaria was inspired to bid, it has chances to be paired to my country and this is gonna be great for tourism. Macedonia on the other hand, has great, great passionate fans and nice people! and of course, the stadium in Copenhagen (Denmark) isn't much bigger.

my thoughts:

UEFA Super Cup to: Jerusalem, Skopje, Minsk
Europa League Final to: Baku 
nothing to: Russia (the Russians would deserve the EURO because of the tradition but the 2018 World Cup is just... THERE)
13th to be picked between: Wales and Bulgaria (if they pick Cardiff, then Sofia to get also a Super Cup; if they pick Sofia then Cardiff to get a final of Europa League or even Champions League if the stadium is qualified)

and the rest to get the 2020 EURO. I think of tradition too!


----------



## Gombos

@ Kjello0

I am surprised that Norway didn't bid.


----------



## 859098

SE9 said:


> Brussels
> King Baudouin Stadium | 45,500
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Total stadia:* 13
> 
> *Stadia with an Athletics track:* 3
> 
> *Stadia without an Athletics track:* 10
> 
> *Stadia 80k - 100k:* 1 (London)
> 
> *Stadia 60k - 80k:* 3 (Rome, Cardiff, Budapest)
> 
> *Stadia 50k - 60k:* 5 (Bucharest, Dublin, Stockholm, Amsterdam, Bilbao)
> 
> *Stadia under 50k:* 3 (Copenhagen, Sofia, Skopje)


You put a picture of the old King Baudouin stadium which will not be used as possible venue for the Euro 2020 as there will be a brand new stadium with at least 60.000 seats and without athletics track.

And in the bottom of you post, you don't even mention Brussels.


----------



## George_D

can we have a list only of the cities that they bid for finals?

for example i know that st petersburg didnt bid for final


----------



## Gombos

George_D said:


> can we have a list only of the cities that they bid for finals?
> 
> for example i know that st petersburg didnt bid for final


only Munich and London (standard + semifinals/final packages). the rest all for the standard one.

http://www.uefa.org/mediaservices/mediareleases/newsid=2096100.html


----------



## Kjello0

Gombos said:


> @ Kjello0
> 
> I am surprised that Norway didn't bid.


Don't have a big enough stadium. Just finished an expansion of Ullevaal stadion from 25,500 seats to 28,000 seats. Even tough the national team currently have problems filling half of the stadium. The last home match against Iceland only had 6,800 spectators. Of the last 10 home matches, only a private match against England drew more than 20,000 spectators. And only a decisive qualifier against Switzerland more than 15,000 spectators. The average spectator number the last 10 matches is only 12,874 spectators.

Also, it would cost a lot to expand the stadium up to the needed 33,000 seats which you in reality need to meet UEFA's demands.

Norway is instead bidding to host both the Women's Euro in either 2017 or 2021, and the U21 championship in either 2017 or 2019.

Personally I'm dreaming of a Norway and Sweden bid in 2028. Or perhaps even adding Denmark to make a Scandinavian bid should UEFA allow that.


----------



## Kjello0

Gombos said:


> UEFA Super Cup to: Jerusalem, Skopje, Minsk


Norway is actually bidding to host the Super Cup final in either 2016 or 2017. With 2017 being the preferred year.

Rosenborg of Trondheim celebrates its 100th anniversary in 2017. And wants to celebrate that by hosting the Super Cup final at their stadium Lerkendal stadion (21,500 seats).


----------



## alexandru.mircea

RobH said:


> Turkey is aiming for the 2024 Euros so can't expect back-to-back awards from UEFA. That's why they've pulled out. Personally, I think we should be shooting for the 2030 World Cup if it looks like that's destined for Europe. I don't think a Euros final at Wembley 10 years earlier will affect that aspiration an enormous amount so I don't think we need to copy what Turkey is doing.


Is there anything concrete about what Turkey wants for 2024? I would have expected them to pursue the Olympics again, considering they got into the last 3 for 2020. 

Agreed with all the rest of your post, and I'm really looking forward to have the finals in London.


----------



## SE9

VinceB said:


> You put a picture of the old King Baudouin stadium which will not be used as possible venue for the Euro 2020 as there will be a brand new stadium with at least 60.000 seats and without athletics track.
> 
> And in the bottom of you post, you don't even mention Brussels.


I'm aware of the new stadium for Brussels, which is why I didn't mention the old one at the bottom.


----------



## George_D

Gombos said:


> only Munich and London (standard + semifinals/final packages). the rest all for the standard one.
> 
> http://www.uefa.org/mediaservices/mediareleases/newsid=2096100.html



not even Rome?


----------



## RobH

Did you actually read the link George? No, not even Rome.


----------



## hugenholz

Is Munich only bidding for the semis and final package? Because that would mean that Munich won't be part of the Euro 2020 hosting cities *(IF London wins this package*). This will also increase Germany's Euro 2024 chances 

If Munich won't be part of the quarter finals and groupstages package I think it will be like this:
*
Semi finals/Final*:
- London
*
Quarter finals and group stages*:
- Rome
- Brussels
- Cardiff
- Budapest
*
1/8 finals and group stages:* 
- Amsterdam
- Bilbao
- Bucharest
- Stockholm
- Copenhagen 
- Glasgow
- Skopje 
- Sofia


----------



## Tony E Architecture

*Final and Semi-Finals: Wembley Stadium, London, England (90,000 Seats).*

Group A:

Aviva Stadium, Dublin, Republic of Ireland (51,700 Seats).

Millennium Stadium, Cardiff, Wales (74,500 Seats).


Group B:

Hampden Park, Glasgow, Scotland (53,000 Seats).

New National Stadium, Brussels, Belgium (60,000 Seats).


Group C:

Allianz Arena, Munich, Germany (66,000 Seats).

Amsterdam Arena, Amsterdam, Holland (56,000 Seats).


Group D:

San Mames Barria, Bilbao, Spain (54,000 Seats).

Olympic Stadium, Rome, Italy (73,000 Seats).


Group E:

Friends Arena, Stockholm (Solna), Sweden (51,000 Seats).

Parken Stadium, Copenhagen, Denmark (39,000 Seats).


Group F:

New National Stadium, Budapest, Hungary (65,000 Seats).

National Stadium, Bucharest, Romania (55,600 Seats).



Round of 16:

Aviva Stadium, Dublin, Republic of Ireland (51,700 Seats).

Millennium Stadium, Cardiff, Wales (74,500 Seats).

Hampden Park, Glasgow, Scotland (53,000 Seats).

Allianz Arena, Munich, Germany (66,000 Seats).

Amsterdam Arena, Amsterdam, Holland (56,000 Seats).

San Mames Barria, Bilbao, Spain (54,000 Seats).

Friends Arena, Stockholm (Solna), Sweden (51,000 Seats).

New National Stadium, Budapest, Hungary (65,000 Seats).


Quarter-Finals:

Millennium Stadium, Cardiff, Wales (74,500 Seats).

Allianz Arena, Munich, Germany (66,000 Seats).

San Mames Barria, Bilbao, Spain (54,000 Seats).

New National Stadium, Budapest, Hungary (65,000 Seats).


*Semi-Finals and Final:

Wembley Stadium, London, England (90,000 Seats).*


----------



## GEwinnen

Munich offers 71,000 seats! 70,000 is required for the final package bid.


----------



## RobH

hugenholz said:


> Is Munich only bidding for the semis and final package? Because that would mean that Munich won't be part of the Euro 2020 hosting cities *(IF London wins this package*).


There is a link showing who's bidding for what. It's been posted at least twice in this thread already!

Munich is bidding for both packages, so is London.


----------



## hugenholz

RobH said:


> There is a link showing who's bidding for what. It's been posted at least twice in this thread already!
> 
> Munich is bidding for both packages, so is London.


I think you are right but I think there will be some changes coming up at the last moment...


----------



## Turkiiish

*Baku 2020 - Candidate for UEFA EURO 2020*


----------



## Gombos

Tony, you are wrong again, any standard package means a group + a knockout stage match but not the semifinals/final.


----------



## Xtreminal

The report raises concerns about Israel's and Russia's capacity to host matches because of the political instability in both countries. Russia have put forward St. Petersburg and Israel Jerusalem.

UEFA said that the political situation in Israel is "complex" and acknowledged Russia's political situation as "increasingly complex."

UEFA said it did not receive sufficient information regarding the budget and the renovation work at the 32,000-capacity Teddy Stadium in Jerusalem.

"Regarding safety and security, the stadium has not provided any relevant certificates or evacuation plan," the report added.

UEFA also evaluated the repercussions of Scotland's bid if the country gains independence, with the referendum result due at the same time the 13 cities will be selected.

"Scotland being part of the UK, the legal situation is mostly - but not entirely - identical to that of England and Wales," UEFA said. "The situation may have to be reassessed should Scotland become independent of the UK following the referendum."

The evaluation report also criticises the Scottish bid itself. "The commercial sector of the bid is inadequate, as the information provided lacks clarity. The amount of advertising space offered is vague."

Glasgow's transport links and hotel accommodation are praised however, as is its plans for fan zones.

Dublin, which staged the Europa League final in 2011, and Cardiff, which held the recent Super Cup between Real Madrid and Sevilla, both received largely positive assessments though the stadium in Dublin "only partly meets UEFA's requirements in terms of accessibility as it does not offer enough parking spaces at the stadium or close by" while inspectors pointed out that fans would have to use airports in Bristol or even London to get to Cardiff.


----------



## Xtreminal

I highly doubt Jerusalem or Saint Petersbourg is gonna get it. That leaves us 4 cities


----------



## Elad_A

Jerusalem is definitely not gonna get it.
1. UEFA said the bid is lame. not using that word, but it is lame.
2. The sound of rockets and the smell of gun powder is still too fresh.


----------



## mckeenan

Xtreminal said:


> I highly doubt Jerusalem or Saint Petersbourg is gonna get it. That leaves us 4 cities


St Pertersburg might achieve it. Their bid was excellent. They're throwing a lot money at the stadium and bid. The only thing that can prevent St Petersburg from hosting the Euro is UEFA pledging to current western mindset of punishing Russia for its actions related to Ukraine.

Jerusalem won't get it, that's for sure.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

^StP will also have had the World Cup just two years before


----------



## hugenholz

According to my info:

- UEFA will divide the countries in regions (2 hours travel distance). UK/Ireland will have 3 countries selected out of 4.

So I think it will look like this: 

*Final & Semi finals*:
- England-London- Wembley

*Quarter finals and group stages*:
- Belgium-Brussels-new stadium
- Italy-Rome-Stadio Olympico
- Azerbaijan-Baku-Bakı Olimpiya Stadionu
- Germany-Munich-Allianz Arena

*1/8 finals and group stages*:
- Netherlands-Amsterdam-Amsterdam ArenA
- Ireland-Dublin-Aviva Stadium
- Wales-Cardiff-Millennium Stadium
- Spain-Bilbao-San Mamés Barria
- Rumania-Bucharest-Arena Națională
- Hungary-Budapest-Új Puskás Ferenc Stadion
- Sweden-Stockholm-Friends Arena
- Denmark-Copenhagen-Parken Stadion


----------



## alexandru.mircea

^would make sense


----------



## k5villan

why has spain put bilbao forward rather than the refurbished nou camp?


----------



## ReNaHtEiM

Nou Camp won't be ready by 2020.

http://www.fcbarcelona.com/club/det...-will-be-a-source-of-pride-for-all-barca-fans


----------



## bongo-anders

It could be interesting to compare all the bids to each other so i made a few lists.

I know they will vote by commercial interests instead but if I was voting I would look at these criterias.

Also its hard to make a list judged by tax issues, politics, Transport, social responsibility, legal aspects etc etc.



Capacity:

London: Wembley Stadium - 90,652
Cardiff: Millenium Stadium - 74,154
München: Allianz Arena - 70,067
Baku: Baku Olympic Stadium - 69,870
Roma: Stadio Olympico - 68,993
Budapest: Puskás Ferenc Stadium - 68,156
Bruxelles: Eurostadium - 62,613
Sankt Petersburg - Zenit Arena 61,251
Bucharest: National Arena - 54, 851
Bilbao: San Mamés - 53,289
Amsterdam: Amsterdam ArenA - 53,052
Dublin: Aviva Stadium - 51,711
Glasgow: Hampden Park - 51,472

Stockholm: Friends Arena - 50,653
Copenhagen: Parken - 38,190
Minsk: Dynamo Arena - 35,000
Sofia: National Stadium - 33,621
Skopje: National Arena..... - 32,483
Jerusalem: Teddy Stadium - 32,000



Hotel/hostel capacity

London - Very impressive
München - Very impresssive
Budapest - Very impressive
Roma - Very impressive
Amsterdam - Very impressive
Dublin - Very impressive
Stockholm - Very impressive
Copenhagen - Very Impressive
Bruxelles - Impressive
Sankt Petersburg - Impressive
Glasgow - Suffient
Bucharest - Acceptable
Sofia - Acceptable

Bilbao - Low
Cardiff - Limited (or small)
Baku - Limited 
Skopje - Very limited
Minsk - Highly Insuffient
Jerusalem - Not evaluated



Experience in hosting major events

London - Outstanding 
Bruxelles - Strong
Copenhagen - Strong
Amsterdam - Highly experienced
München - Highly experienced
Roma - Very experienced
Stockholm - Good
Glasgow - Experienced
Sankt Petersburg - Reasonable Experience
Dublin - Suffient
Cardiff - Has experience
Budapest - Has experience
Baku - Limited, though growing

Bilbao - Limited
Minsk - Limited
Sofia - Limited
Bucharest - Very limited
Skopje - Very limited
Jerusalem - Very limited


I´ll admit that the last list is open for interpretation but this is how I will place them.


----------



## Birmingham

All British and Irish cities have huge experience at hosting major events. More so than Brussels I would say. 

All are homes of their national teams. All host or have hosted national and international finals. Glasgow has recently hosted the Commonwealth games and all cities are home to 6 nations and Rugby world cup games. 

Cardiff when London was being redeveloped took in over 200,000 fans over a weekend on a regular occurance for the football league play-offs. 

I don't think capacity of hotels is a problem either for one or two matches. Cardiff is an hour and a bit drive from Birmingham not to mention the UK is flooded with good hotel accommodation in surburban areas.


----------



## bongo-anders

I only refer to the UEFA report, so its their judgement.

It's also suggested that Cardiff should use out of town hotel rooms, student dorm's and private accommodation.


By events I think they do talk about more than just sports, like conferences and convention's.

For Copenhagen I think they refers to events like COP 15, IOC congress, cycling world championships.

Before 2020 Copenhagen will host several important sports events like the handball world cup and the ice hockey world cup in 2018.


----------



## hugenholz

As I said before I expect that UEFA will most likely prefer a regional setup.
So lets's say:

UK/Ireland region:
- London
- Cardiff
- Dublin

Western Europe:
- Munich
- Amsterdam
- Brussels

Southern Europe:
- Bilbao
- Rome

Northern Europe:
- Stockholm
- Copenhagen

Central Europe:
- Budapest
- Bucharest

Eastern Europe:
- Baku


----------



## coronett30

hugenholz said:


> According to my info:
> 
> - UEFA will divide the countries in regions (2 hours travel distance). UK/Ireland will have 3 countries selected out of 4.
> 
> So I think it will look like this:
> 
> *Final & Semi finals*:
> - England-London- Wembley
> 
> *Quarter finals and group stages*:
> - Belgium-Brussels-new stadium
> - Italy-Rome-Stadio Olympico
> - Azerbaijan-Baku-Bakı Olimpiya Stadionu
> - Germany-Munich-Allianz Arena
> 
> *1/8 finals and group stages*:
> - Netherlands-Amsterdam-Amsterdam ArenA
> - Ireland-Dublin-Aviva Stadium
> - Wales-Cardiff-Millennium Stadium
> - Spain-Bilbao-San Mamés Barria
> - Rumania-Bucharest-Arena Națională
> - Hungary-Budapest-Új Puskás Ferenc Stadion
> - Sweden-Stockholm-Friends Arena
> - Denmark-Copenhagen-Parken Stadion



2 hours travel distance from Budapest (Flight duration):

Budapest -> Munich 1 hrs 15 mins
Budapest -> Rome 1 hrs 35 mins
Budapest -> Bucharest 1 hrs 40 mins
Budapest -> Copenhagen 1 hrs 50 mins
Budapest -> Brussels 2 hrs 0 mins

Budapest -> Amsterdam 2hrs 5 mins
Budapest -> Stockholm 2 hrs 10 mins
Budapest -> London 2hrs 25 mins


----------



## Colm Flynn

I think the Host cities will be

London (England)
Cardiff (Wales)
Dublin (Ireland)
Amsterdam (Netherlands)
Brussels (Belgium)
Munich (Germany)
Bilbao (Spain)
Rome (Italy)
Copenhagen (Denmark)
Stockholm (Sweden)
Bucharest (Romania)
Budapest (Hungary)
Baku (Azerbaijan)


----------



## Galandar

IMO Sankt Petersburg has got a pretty high score in UEFA evaluation note. If not the current political situation, it would be definitely among those 13 cities. In any case, in two days we will see the final list by UEFA  Good luck to all the nominated cities!


----------



## Colm Flynn

Galandar said:


> IMO Sankt Petersburg has got a pretty high score in UEFA evaluation note. If not the current political situation, it would be definitely among those 13 cities. In any case, in two days we will see the final list by UEFA  Good luck to all the nominated cities!


Do you not think hosting the world cup two years prior to the Euro's might harm their bid?


----------



## Galandar

Colm Flynn said:


> Do you not think hosting the world cup two years prior to the Euro's might harm their bid?


Hm I don't think so. In any case, those are two different competitions and here we are not talking about hosting the whole EURO, just several games within this tournament.


----------



## coth

hugenholz said:


> As I said before I expect that UEFA will most likely prefer a regional setup.
> So lets's say:
> 
> UK/Ireland region:
> - London
> - Cardiff
> - Dublin
> 
> Western Europe:
> - Munich
> - Amsterdam
> - Brussels
> 
> Southern Europe:
> - Bilbao
> - Rome
> 
> Northern Europe:
> - Stockholm
> - Copenhagen
> 
> Central Europe:
> - Budapest
> - Bucharest
> 
> Eastern Europe:
> - Baku


11 stadiums for western europe and 1 for eastern?


----------



## hugenholz

coth said:


> 11 stadiums for western europe and 1 for eastern?


The current unstable political situation in Russia and Ukraine and the new boycot proposals by the EU will make it almost impossible for the UEFA to have a Russian bid awarded with a Euro 2020 spot. Don't forget Russia is also the WC 2018 host.

btw: there are only 3 Eastern Europe candidates:

- Belarus-Minsk (really small stadium)
- Azerbaijan-Baku 
- Russia-St. Petersburg


----------



## RMB2007

Would have preferred Cardiff and Stockholm over Glasgow and Copenhagen, with Roma's new stadium instead of the Stadio Olimpico. Existing stadiums getting any upgrades before the competition?


----------



## dj4life

Stockholm was robbed!


----------



## Gombos

dj4life said:


> Stockholm was robbed!


and you weren't even competing with Baku and Sankt Petersburg, but with Denmark, then you were the lasts in the requalification competition. maybe the project was the problem? or backstage games? honestly, your project was very good (second tier after Germany, England, etc.) if it had no errors or something.


----------



## hugenholz

Amsterdam had the most votes and best evaluation report. Thats a big compliment for Amsterdam and the Amsterdam ArenA!


----------



## Gombos

hugenholz said:


> Amsterdam had the most votes and best evaluation report. Thats a big compliment for Amsterdam and the Amsterdam ArenA!


except that you didn't compete with England/London, Germany/Munich, Azerbaijan/Baku, Russia/St. Petersburg, Italy/Rome and even Denmark/Copenhagen and Romania/Bucharest. to see the full rankings of the evaluation. but you surely beat 5 out of 13 hosts, AT LEAST. you had an upper report.


----------



## Lakeland

RMB2007 said:


> Would have preferred Cardiff and Stockholm over Glasgow and Copenhagen, with Roma's new stadium instead of the Stadio Olimpico. Existing stadiums getting any upgrades before the competition?


Is Roma's new stadium a sure thing?


----------



## RMB2007

Lakeland said:


> Is Roma's new stadium a sure thing?


I guess it's always good to be precautions, especially as we're talking about a new stadium in Italy. However, all the talk is very positive, even from their city council, with work expected to start in the next 8-10 months.


----------



## jedac

flashman said:


> Group pairings should be:
> 
> Dublin & Glasgow
> Brussels & Amsterdam
> Copenhagen & Munich
> Rome & Bilbao
> St. Pete & Baku
> Bucharest and Budapest
> 
> This makes for convenient travel. Would like to do Bucharest and Budapest by blimp.
> 
> Would not like to be flying over the Caspian Sea with the Crimea becoming a hotspot.
> 
> Still not convinced St. Petersburg will get a game. Stadium probably won't be finished in time. And, of course, there could be repercussions from the conflict in Ukraine.
> __________________


St Petersburg will be one of the host city for 2018 world cup


----------



## gazzaa2

Which of these grounds selected will be built or redeveloped (more than minor changes here and there) for the tournament?


----------



## bongo-anders

I'm sorry that I have to defend the choice of Copenhagen its the 60 year anniversary of UEFA and Denmark is the 1992 champions (btw hosted by Sweden).

My point being that Denmark will never be able to host a EURO championship by itself and I think that the Executive committee wanted to honor Denmark this way by giving the hosting rights.


And if anyone read the evaluation report then they would have noticed that Denmark scored high in every parameters like except the stadium capacity.

And Parken has been renovated a few times already so its not a 1992 bunker or anything.


----------



## KøbenhavnK

Copenhagen calling:

I'm tired of seeing people saying that Stockholm should have taken Copenhagen's place.

UEFA EURO 2020 is NOT a competition about having the biggest and the newest stadiums. It's about the game of football.

UEFA said that they would favor small countries that would otherwise never be able to host the competition. Sweden hosted it in 1992 (not that long ago in historic terms). Denmark never did and never will. Unless we got this chance.

We do have a small outdated stadium but we have had teams in the semifinals three times. For a country our size we have done what we could to contribute to the competition over the years and people are euphoric that our bid went through. And the event is still six years away.

Besides Parken Stadium is half an hours drive away from Sweden's third largest city and all of us in Copenhagen look forward to welcoming the thousands of Swedes that will join the party.

Thank you UEFA!

:cheers: :banana::banana::banana: :cheers:


----------



## mckeenan

About Stockholm... you guys above might be right... but there's an major issue with the pitch at the Friends Arena. That might had been pivotal to dissmiss their bid. Also, Copenhagen presented a very strong bid, despite of the slightly smaller stadium compared to Friends Arena.


----------



## hugenholz

Gombos said:


> except that you didn't compete with England/London, Germany/Munich, Azerbaijan/Baku, Russia/St. Petersburg, Italy/Rome and even Denmark/Copenhagen and Romania/Bucharest. to see the full rankings of the evaluation. but you surely beat 5 out of 13 hosts, AT LEAST. you had an upper report.


According to the City Counsel Member of Amsterdam, Amsterdam and the Amsterdam ArenA had the best evaluation report of all stadiums and cities. All UEFA counsil members voted for Amsterdam, (the only city/stadium who achieved this). Amsterdam ArenA aint finished yet btw, in the next years the ArenA will have a so called "quality-boost"


----------



## Gombos

:cheers1: congrat Amsterdam, indeed one of the best cities of Europe :nocrook:

I am also exulting, Bucharest will have 3 more new stadiums. :banana: this means Steaua, Dinamo and Rapid rebuilted. :banana: our project says 4 top arenas, one will be a reserve and all the other 3 can used to trainings :cheers: the subway is still expanding, the capital has another new terminal (violin form) at one of the two airports, also a high-speed train to Iasi will be half made by Chinese, they still have to link a highway to Budapest



mckeenan said:


> About Stockholm... you guys above might be right... but there's an major issue with the pitch at the Friends Arena. That might had been pivotal to dissmiss their bid.


this is a joke, no? maybe because Sweden hosted 1992 and Copenhagen is not far from Sweden. or the project included errors, I am not sure.

speaking about the stadium and Stockholm, they are great. the pitch problem can be easily resolved.


----------



## alwn

> Gombos;117521 I am also exulting, Bucharest will have 3 more new stadiums. :banana: this means Steaua, Dinamo and Rapid rebuilted. :banana: our project says 4 top arenas :cheers: the subway is still expanding, the capital has another new teinal (violin form) at one of the two airports, also a high-speed train to Iasi will be half made by Chinese, they still have to link a highway to Budapest


 You are a dreamer. They wont build 3 new stadiums (and competitive for Champions, Europa league!) only for trainings. For this you need only a good pitch, good dreesing rooms and some stands for the open trainings. As for subway let's hope that it will be built. You know, our stupid Gov still considers as being ineficient to have a subway conection airport- city center. What 2 airports? Baneasa Airport is used only for business charters. Chinese investment in infrastructure is just the usual lie of our Gov, I has been hearing this story since early 2000. High speed train in Romania? In 20 years maybe


----------



## Fizmo1337

Hampden Park looks so outdated + the seats are too far from the pitch.

Same for stadio Olimpico. Stadiums with an athletics track should never be chosen. The view towards the pitch is so bad plus the stadium is outdated.

Instead Cardiff & the new stadium of AS Roma should be chosen.


----------



## Gombos

alwn said:


> Chinese investment in infrastructure is just the usual lie of our Gov, I has been hearing this story since early 2000.


:lol: I don't talk to pessimistic people like you, it has nothing to do with early 2000, it's about the Central East Europe-China Summit from the last year. then at the end of August this year we went to them. China is the future!


----------



## Gombos

Lakeland said:


> Is Roma's new stadium a sure thing?


:nuts: :lol: imagine if some will not be able to build the stadium.


----------



## nbcee

Let's not forget that Sweden hosted Euro 1992. Azerbaijan, Romania, Hungary, Denmark, Ireland and Scotland never hosted an European Championship and probably never will if we go back to the original system (I'm not counting Russia who will be the WC hosts in 2018).


----------



## tom77

*New Puskás Ferenc Stadium - Budapest, Hungary*


----------



## Kerrybai

GEwinnen said:


>


Eh yes that is one political view, there is also a common political view that post Soviet countries are Eastern Europe, hence the East West divide of the Cold War. But as a German I'm sure you already know that.


----------



## GEwinnen

.....


----------



## GEwinnen

Kerrybai said:


> But as a German I'm sure you already know that.



Times have changed, former "eastern block" neighbours like Poland and Czech Republik are closer now!


----------



## Ferahim

nbcee said:


> Let's not forget that Sweden hosted Euro 1992. *Azerbaijan, *Romania, Hungary, Denmark, Ireland and Scotland never hosted an European Championship and probably never will if we go back to the original system (I'm not counting Russia who will be the WC hosts in 2018).


I strongly believe you are wrong about Azerbaijan. If they will go back to original system, still can host alone. I want to add Denmark to this list also.


----------



## JorgeGt

Out of curiosity, which will be the venue to host the opening match?


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

JorgeGt said:


> Out of curiosity, which will be the venue to host the opening match?


I'm assuming it would be somewhere more East but would be interesting to see how they go about chosing a host.


----------



## Galandar

Baku Olympic stadium - Completed:



























































































http://www.baku2015.com


----------



## k5villan

Lovely looking stadium, but (as per the "Olympic" in the name) that's not a football stadium, hating how far away the pitch is from the crowd


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Galandar

k5villan said:


> Lovely looking stadium, but (as per the "Olympic" in the name) that's not a football stadium, hating how far away the pitch is from the crowd
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Thanks. True, it is not a pure football stadium. Nowadays Baku Olympic Stadium is hosting the European Games 2015:




























Baku Olympic stadium during the opening ceremony of the EG 2015:




























http://www.baku2015.com/photos/photo-gallery/opening-ceremony-images.html


----------



## Poul_

Galandar said:


> Baku Olympic stadium


There is only one problem with olympic stadiums... they are olympic...


----------



## RobH

^^ Except this one, which isn't


----------



## alexandru.mircea

"Olympic" in the name of a sports venue happens quite often, for various reasons. I never really got the outrage about this. Some are called like that because they are built with hosting the Olympics in mind. Where I come from, venues like especially swimming pools, ice rinks, velodromes etc are usually designated as Olympic if they are built to Olympic standards, so that sportspeople can perform there in the same conditions that they would find in the Olympics.


----------



## k5villan

the strange thing is the Azerbaijani FA own it, after the european games it will be a football stadium, the official name is Bakı Milli Stadionu, im not actually sure what Milli translates to, national or olympic, looks more like national to me


----------



## mckeenan

k5villan said:


> the strange thing is the Azerbaijani FA own it, after the european games it will be a football stadium, the official name is Bakı Milli Stadionu, im not actually sure what Milli translates to, national or olympic, looks more like national to me


I don't know, but I think it's a good idea to have a track in this stadium. Azerbaijan doesn't have a strong football league, and I don't think it will be easy for them to host international football events. A multipurpose stadium is the only way to skip a white elephant scenario.


----------



## NaRc0t1c

Europe :X


----------



## GEwinnen

Poul_ said:


> There is only one problem with olympic stadiums... they are olympic...


There are only a few stadiums in the world which DESERVE to bear the name Olympic Stadium, in Europe these are:

Olympic Stadium Barcelona
Olympic Stadium London
Olympic Stadium Athens
Olympic Stadium Munich
Olympic Stadium Berlin
Olympic Stadium Helsinki
Olympic Stadium Rome

The IOC should protect "Olympic Stadium" for real olympic stadiums!


----------



## usernametaken

Why this list? What about Amsterdam, Stockholm or Moscow for instance?


----------



## Blackhavvk

+ Sochi and Kiev


----------



## Akai

usernametaken said:


> Why this list? What about Amsterdam, Stockholm or Moscow for instance?


and Beijing, Tokyo...


----------



## usernametaken

Akai said:


> and Beijing, Tokyo...


Well that's not really close to Europe so I understand why he left those out of his list


----------



## stefan2000

Its AlL gUUd said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if its somewhere in Eastern Europe, possibly Baku?


That is not really Europe.


----------



## xalexey

GEwinnen said:


> There are only a few stadiums in the world which DESERVE to bear the name Olympic Stadium, in Europe these are:
> 
> Olympic Stadium Barcelona
> Olympic Stadium London
> Olympic Stadium Athens
> Olympic Stadium Munich
> Olympic Stadium Berlin
> Olympic Stadium Helsinki
> Olympic Stadium Rome


Olympic Stadium Moscow


----------



## hightower1

stefan2000 said:


> That is not really Europe.


Neither is England now...:banana::lol:

j/k


----------



## DimitriB

xalexey said:


> Olympic Stadium Moscow



Amsterdam - Antwerp?


----------



## stefan2000

hightower1 said:


> Neither is England now...:banana::lol:
> 
> j/k


Still Europe.


----------



## Rev Stickleback

jugensas said:


> I think, opening ceremony will be in Wembley due to historical events or in New Puskás Ferenc Stadium, because it will be just incredible venue.


Does anyone really care about the opening ceremony?

It's not like the Olympics, where it's a big event. France couldn't even sell out their first game of Euro 2016, because they charged premium prices for it having the opening ceremony.


I still think it's a terrible idea overall. One of the great things about going out to a tournament is that you get a big mix of fans of many nationalities in many of the cities, as fans take in more games than just the ones their team is playing in. It'll be much harder to have that with the cities so far apart.


----------



## k5villan

at wembley because of history? :lol:

it'll be at wembley because of the same reason as the final, the fantastic corporate facilities and all the money it will make U£FA


----------



## endrity

Rev Stickleback said:


> Does anyone really care about the opening ceremony?
> 
> It's not like the Olympics, where it's a big event. France couldn't even sell out their first game of Euro 2016, because they charged premium prices for it having the opening ceremony.
> 
> 
> I still think it's a terrible idea overall. One of the great things about going out to a tournament is that you get a big mix of fans of many nationalities in many of the cities, as fans take in more games than just the ones their team is playing in. It'll be much harder to have that with the cities so far apart.


Unfortunately I agree. It seemed like a reaction to the fact that Turkey was the only country really willing to host it during the Euroarea financial crisis. But it really will not be the same thing and it will reduce much of the atmosphere.


----------



## JorgeGt

Can't be at Wembley. London wasn't chosen for group stage games, only for the final's package (semis plus final)... My guess is the opening will take place in Bucharest, Budapest or Baku.


----------



## Axelferis

Why it will be at bucharest?

A lot of eastern countries have problem of hooliganism like croatia,russia. I think to host in several countries is a big mistake


----------



## coronett30

*BUDAPEST - Ferenc Puskás Stadion (67.155 all-seater)*

2016 July










2019-2020


----------



## copa olympic

--


> *UEFA EURO 2020 logo launch in London*
> 046 - Tournament and first of thirteen host city logos to be unveiled on 21 September
> Published: Friday 16 September 2016, 10.00CET
> 
> The countdown to UEFA EURO 2020 officially begins when the newly-elected UEFA President, Aleksander Čeferin, together with the Chairman of the Football Association, Greg Clarke, and the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, unveil the tournament's visual identity and the London host city logo. The event will take place on Wednesday 21 September at 11.30 local time at London City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London, SE1 2 AA.
> 
> The 2020 UEFA European Championship will mark the 60th anniversary of the competition. This historic edition will see matches hosted in 13 cities across Europe, with the semi-finals and final staged at Wembley Stadium in London in July 2020.
> 
> The logos of all host cities will be unveiled in separate events in the respective countries with the second one taking place the following day in Rome and the third scheduled for 30 September in Baku.
> 
> UEFA


----------



## Axelferis

Please the list of chosen cities


----------



## parcdesprinces

^^ uefa.com/EURO 2020, annonce des villes d'accueil


----------



## quanman247

Axelferis said:


> Please the list of chosen cities


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_Euro_2020


----------



## Roxven

quanman247 said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_Euro_2020


So Polish, Ukrainan and French amazing venues are off due to hosting 2 last Euroes. Turkey is also off, so i bet my ass they will host Euro 2024. Question is who will host Euro 2028 if rest major countries are hosting EURO 2020?


----------



## Axelferis

I was asking because i wasn't sure about the serious of those decisions ^^
I still can't believe the madness behind this idea :nuts:

I think it's a mistake.
For Rome and Brussels which site is chosen?? :dunno:


----------



## Guest

Roxven said:


> So Polish, Ukrainan and French amazing venues are off due to hosting 2 last Euroes. Turkey is also off, so i bet my ass they will host Euro 2024. Question is who will host Euro 2028 if rest major countries are hosting EURO 2020?


Hosting one venue in 2020 is hardly going to make a dent to a nations prospects of hosting an entire tournament down the line. 

Either way, I think people are underestimating how groundbreaking this could be. Pan continental venues could become the norm, whether people like it or not.


----------



## quanman247

Roxven said:


> So Polish, Ukrainan and French amazing venues are off due to hosting 2 last Euroes. Turkey is also off, so i bet my ass they will host Euro 2024. Question is who will host Euro 2028 if rest major countries are hosting EURO 2020?


Given the current situation in Turkey, I doubt UEFA will take such a risk. Euro 2024 maybe better off in either the joint Nordic countries or best case scenario, Germany.


----------



## Gombos

Axelferis said:


> Why it will be at bucharest?
> 
> A lot of eastern countries have problem of hooliganism like croatia,russia. I think to host in several countries is a big mistake


because Bucharest already hosted the Europa League final and is the 6th city of the European Union as population. the sister of Paris! :storm:

in Romania the hooliganism is lower than in France.  in Croatia surely the same.


----------



## COOLancs

del


----------



## Gombos

Opa


----------



## copa olympic

*Brussels*


----------



## copa olympic

*Bilbao*


----------



## copa olympic

*Amsterdam*


----------



## copa olympic

*Saint Petersburg*


----------



## GunnerJacket

So somehow I've completely missed the fact that the host cities were already confirmed! (I guess that means my shift in more attention to the domestic MLS is taking hold, which is good.)

Count me among those disappointed that London, Munich and Rome were included seeing as those places would have ample opportunity to be involved in the future. This was a prime opportunity to let some other cities/venues take the spotlight for a change.

Given this, I don't wish to rehash anything that's been discussed before. Was there ample, quality discussion about the sites and the selection process? If so I'll go back through the thread.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

^ cities bid themselves, UEFA chose from those that did. London got picked ahead of Munich, only these two cities bid for the last stage of organisation (having lost, Munich got the "standard package"). Rome got picked ahead of Stockholm and Cardiff, who will be missed on one hand but on the other you could say about them, as well, that they will hopefully host on their own in the future (indeed, the potential Scandiavian and Celtic bids have been one of the most recurrent topics on this board). 

I'd say that this edition brings an unparalleled spread of the event to new cities and countries like never before and probably never again: Bucharest, Budapest, Baku, Dublin, Glasgow, Copenhagen, Bilbao... At least in that it is exciting, less so in other aspects.

Edit: also RE Cardiff and Stockholm, with them in the tournament would have also been too North-Western Europe heavy. There was a need for a balance towards the South but I'd rather have had Athens or Thessaloniki instead of Rome, but they sadly didn't bid.


----------



## Maartendev

Now that the Eurostadium in Brussel be most likely cancelled, will it still be possible to play Euro 2020 matches in the King Boudewijn stadium? It also hosted 5 matches at Euro 2000 and it is in my opinion still a decent stadium. Why should it not be possible to play there?

Capacity is a bit lower but still 50K


----------



## Rover030

Maartendev said:


> Now that the Eurostadium in Brussel be most likely cancelled, will it still be possible to play Euro 2020 matches in the King Boudewijn stadium? It also hosted 5 matches at Euro 2000 and it is in my opinion still a decent stadium. Why should it not be possible to play there?
> 
> Capacity is a bit lower but still 50K


I read that the King Boudewijn stadium is not modern enough to host a UEFA tournament so it can't be used. Sweden is rumoured to bid with the friends arena in Stockholm: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=138484661#post138484661


----------



## Gombos

so Romania will be totally ready for Euro at least as sports infrastructure. we will have 3-4 new stadiums more in Bucharest, over National Arena that will host 7 matches. these buildings will serve as training grounds. all brand new.

so here is the main stadium (it hosted Europa League final in 2012). this summer will start the construction of Steaua, Rapid, Dinamo/Cotroceni and the rugby stadium.


----------



## coronett30

New Puskas Ferenc Stadion - Budapest, Hungary
Capacity: 68,000 seats
Scheduled opening: 2019

2015


2016


2017


http://www.kepfeltoltes.eu/view.php?filename=2362017.08.08._puskas_sta.jpg



2019


----------



## coronett30

Budapest UEFA Euro 2020 logo:


----------



## copa olympic

--


> The UEFA Executive Committee received an update on the situation regarding the Eurostadium in Brussels, one of the venues for UEFA EURO 2020, and requested that all relevant permits to start construction, as well as a realistic and guaranteed construction schedule, be obtained by 20 November 2017.
> 
> In addition, the committee asked the UEFA Administration to start, in parallel, a fast-track process to develop a replacement option.
> 
> The replacement options are Sweden/Stockholm and Wales/Cardiff (both candidates from the original bidding process for UEFA EURO 2020), as well as England/Wembley (the only current host with availability to host all the matches that should be played in Brussels). The UEFA Executive Committee will make a final decision on this matter on 7 December 2017.
> 
> UEFA


----------



## cyril sneer

I would be surprised if Wales get the nod what with matches already due to be held in London, Dublin and Glasgow.


----------



## ElvisBC

cyril sneer said:


> I would be surprised if Wales get the nod what with matches already due to be held in London, Dublin and Glasgow.


they won't get it, uefa realized what crappy decission it was with cardiff hosting last CL final, no hotels etc. ceferin already referred to that in one of his statements. easy for him to do so, cardiff got it from platinis and infantinos uefa in zero transparence process behind the closed doors, not from the current administration!

I'd say either wembley gets it all, or those games go to sweden. both would be good decission imho!


----------



## cyril sneer

Wembley would be the cash cow option that might be attractive to UEFA. I was surprised Sweden were not included as one of the hosts in the first place.


----------



## ElvisBC

cyril sneer said:


> Wembley would be the cash cow option that might be attractive to UEFA. I was surprised Sweden were not included as one of the hosts in the first place.


that was platinis and infantinos deeply corrupt uefa, pay most get first :colgate:


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

ElvisBC said:


> they won't get it, uefa realized what crappy decission it was with cardiff hosting last CL final, no hotels etc. ceferin already referred to that in one of his statements. easy for him to do so, cardiff got it from platinis and infantinos uefa in zero transparence process behind the closed doors, not from the current administration!
> 
> I'd say either wembley gets it all, or those games go to sweden. both would be good decission imho!


I expect matches at Cardiff would have a high percentage of British fans in attendance who wouldn't stay overnight. When I attended a cup final there and had to stay over in Bristol it was fine. A couple of other occasions I went there and back in a day. Only if Germany or the Netherlands was playing there would there likely be a huge number of travelling fans wanting to stay overnight. There certainly wouldn't be the number of officials and official hangers on that you get with a Champions League final. Should be fine for group stage matches. If you can host them in Lens and St Etienne then you can host in Cardiff.

It shouldn't be a problem that there are matches in the rest of the British Isles either as Wembley wouldn't be hosting the group stage.

That said Sweden is a good choice as is Wembley. I'd go with Wembley just to increase my chance of getting tickets.


----------



## RobH

Save Wembley for the finals. Cardiff's stadium is big capacity-wise compared with the other venues hosting only group stage/RD16 matches. And as has been said, the UK is getting a decent deal as it is with Wembley/Glasgow.

Sweden's Friends Arena would be the best replacement I think. Similar sized stadium in N Europe to other group stage host stadiums, but outside the UK.


----------



## Ibath

The same logic should have put aside a german bid for the next edition.


----------



## Galandar

Ibath said:


> The same logic should have put aside a german bid for the next edition.


Good point


----------



## alexandru.mircea

Ibath said:


> The same logic should have put aside a german bid for the next edition.


That would not be the same logic at all.


----------



## Axelferis

Evil78 said:


> They have a couple of great stadiums in Brussels


They are so "great" that UEFA decided they won't host a single match :|
Are you serious one second?


----------



## Red85

alexandru.mircea said:


> That would not be the same logic at all.


Exactly. 
Germany may be favorit for 2024, but it would be an a-bomb on the election if you put Munich out of 2020 because it is likely that it would be a host city of 2024. If it's allready decided.


----------



## Evil78

Axelferis said:


> They are so "great" that UEFA decided they won't host a single match :|
> Are you serious one second?


Why wouldn't I be serious? 
King Baudouin Stadium could have been the venue for Euro2020. With a small make-over (including lowering the pitch and eliminating athletics track, like in Stuttgart), it would have reached easily a +60k capacity, with all the necessary facilities. 









The same goes for Constant Vanden Stock stadium.... 

But for some reasons, which I don't know about, they have decided to build a new stadium. Probably legal issues...:dunno:

Other cities were selected with old stadiums (requiring only renovation works). For example Olimpico/Rome, Parken/Copenhagen, Hampden Park/Glasgow, ArenA/Amsterdam, .....


----------



## tunneltime

*BUDAPEST - New Puskás Ferenc Stadion (67,889) - UEFA EURO 2020*
19.02.2018


----------



## tunneltime

*BUDAPEST - New Puskás Ferenc Stadion (67,889) - UEFA EURO 2020*
25.02.2018










www.legifoto.com
https://m.facebook.com/groups/100423196687827?view=permalink&id=1653028871427244&refid=13&__tn__=%2Cg


----------



## Vizemeister

Match schedule for EURO 2020 confirmed: http://www.uefa.com/uefaeuro-2020/news/newsid=2560574.html?iv=true

https://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/competitions/General/02/56/07/72/2560772_DOWNLOAD.pdf


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

I've just seen this match schedule. It throws up the very interesting possibility of England v Scotland in the group stage, should both teams qualify.



> Every qualified host would be guaranteed two home games in the group phase, but there would be no such guarantee for the knockout stage. A maximum of two host teams would be drawn into each of the six groups.


As London and Glasgow are in the same group that means England and Scotland would also be. An anti-English crowd for sure when England play in Glasgow (if we qualify), whether or not it is against Scotland. Less so for Scotland in London (unless it is against England).

None of the other groups have obvious rivalries. It does mean that Ireland will play Spain if they qualify and Hungary would play Germany.


----------



## Stan-nec

The format of the tournament is definitely nice. I think it makes much more financial sense than putting all the pressure on 1 single country.


----------



## copa olympic

--


> *UEFA EURO 2020 qualifying draw made in Dublin*
> Sunday 2 December 2018
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ten UEFA EURO 2020 qualifying groups have been confirmed following the draw in Dublin on Sunday.
> 
> * UEFA EURO 2020 qualifying groups*
> 
> *Group A:* England, Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Montenegro, Kosovo
> 
> *Group B:* Portugal, Ukraine, Serbia, Lithuania, Luxembourg
> 
> *Group C:* Netherlands, Germany, Northern Ireland, Estonia, Belarus
> 
> *Group D:* Switzerland, Denmark, Republic of Ireland, Georgia, Gibraltar
> 
> *Group E:* Croatia, Wales, Slovakia, Hungary, Azerbaijan
> 
> *Group F:* Spain, Sweden, Norway, Romania, Faroe Islands, Malta
> 
> *Group G:* Poland, Austria, Israel, Slovenia, FYR Macedonia, Latvia
> 
> *Group H:* France, Iceland, Turkey, Albania, Moldova, Andorra
> 
> *Group I:* Belgium, Russia, Scotland, Cyprus, Kazakhstan, San Marino
> 
> *Group J:* Italy, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Finland, Greece, Armenia, Liechtenstein
> 
> *How will qualifying work?*
> 
> Simple: every team in a group plays each other twice, with the top two in each section qualifying automatically for the finals. That's 20 of the 24 finals places taken care of, with a further four filled via the play-offs.
> 
> * How do the play-offs fit in?*
> 
> Each separate League (A, B, C and D) in the UEFA Nations League has been allocated one UEFA EURO 2020 place. Four sides from each League will contest single-leg semi-finals and a one-off final (entirely specific to the EURO) in March 2020. The winner of each of these four one-off finals gets a ticket to UEFA EURO 2020.
> 
> In theory, the play-offs are contested by the four winners of the quartet of groups that form each of the four Leagues. However, if a UEFA Nations League group winner has already qualified via the European Qualifiers, their spot goes to the next best-ranked team in their League.
> 
> If a League does not have four teams to compete (say, for example, ten of the 12 League A teams qualify automatically), the remaining slots are allocated to sides from another League in accordance with the overall rankings.
> 
> * Dates for your diary*
> 
> 21–23/03/19: Matchday one
> 24–26/03/19: Matchday two
> 07–08/06/19: Matchday three
> 10–11/06/19: Matchday four
> 05–07/09/19: Matchday five
> 08–10/09/19: Matchday six
> 10–12/10/19: Matchday seven
> 13–15/10/19: Matchday eight
> 14–16/11/19: Matchday nine
> 17–19/11/19: Matchday ten
> 
> 22/11/19: European Qualifiers play-off draw
> 01/12/19: UEFA EURO 2020 final tournament draw
> 26–31/03/20: European Qualifiers play-offs
> 01/04/20: Additional final tournament draw if required
> 12/06–12/07/20: UEFA EURO 2020 final tournament
> 
> * How did the draw work?*
> 
> The teams were split into seven pots: the UEFA Nations League pot, consisting of the four teams set to compete in next year's Finals, as well as Pots 1 to 6. The four countries in the UEFA Nations League pot – Switzerland, Portugal, Netherlands and England – were drawn into the first position in Groups A to D to ensure they each have two dates free for the Finals in June.
> 
> The pots were determined by the overall UEFA Nations League rankings issued on 21 November.
> 
> The six teams in Pot 1 were drawn into the first position in Groups E to J. The ten teams in Pot 2 were drawn into second positions in the ten groups, with the draw continuing in similar style for Pots 3, 4 and 5 to fill positions 3, 4 and 5 respectively. The teams in Pot 6 were then drawn into the sixth position in the six-team Groups F to J.
> 
> There were various other restrictions regarding host nations, prohibited team clashes, winter venues and excessive travel implemented around the draw.
> 
> UEFA


----------



## melads

Some pretty interesting groups. It will be a fun qualifying process.


----------



## Troopchina

I don’t see any interesting groups. You can’t have it with 75 countries participating in the final tournament.


----------



## copa olympic

--


> *EURO 2020 mascot revealed*
> Sunday 24 March 2019
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meet Skillzy, a larger-than-life character inspired by freestyling, street and panna culture.
> 
> The official mascot for UEFA EURO 2020 has been unveiled during a spectacular pre-match display in Amsterdam.
> 
> Accompanied by two of the world's leading freestylers, Liv Cooke and Tobias Becs, Skillzy showed off a few moves to the 55,000 crowd ahead of the European Qualifier between the Netherlands and Germany.
> 
> 
> UEFA


----------



## Temporarily Exiled

Nightmare fuel.


----------



## Ranma Saotome

This is not a mascot, just a masked steward, but fits perfectly to the whole spreaded Euro thing. Must have been suggested by Platini as well.


----------



## ElvisBC

:colgate:


----------



## Gombos

*Romania to stage UEFA EURO 2020 finals draw*

The draw for the finals of UEFA EURO 2020 will take place at ROMEXPO in Bucharest, Romania on Saturday 30 November.

_"I am delighted to announce that Bucharest will host the UEFA EURO 2020 final tournament draw on Saturday 30 November 2019," Christian Karembeu said. "I am sure that the Romanian capital will stage a great draw, just as it will host four great matches in the final tournament proper in June 2020."_

https://www.uefa.com/uefaeuro-2020/news/newsid=2595870.html


----------



## Ranma Saotome

> *UEFA EURO 2020 ticket details announced*
> _Sunday 19 May 2019_
> 
> UEFA EURO 2020 ticket applications begin on 12 June, with as many fans as possible being given the chance to 'LIVE IT. FOR REAL'.
> 
> Approximately 2.5m tickets for UEFA EURO 2020 are set to be sold to fans, with applications for the first 1.5m taking place on EURO2020.com from 12 June to 12 July 2019 at 14:00CET.
> 
> UEFA EURO 2020 will be staged between 12 June and 12 July 2020 in 12 European cities: Amsterdam, Baku, Bilbao, Bucharest, Budapest, Copenhagen, Dublin, Glasgow, London, Munich, Rome and Saint Petersburg. These host cities include eight national capitals, and 11 venues with a stadium capacity in excess of 50,000. In all, there will be 3m seats at the matches, with 2.5m – 82% of the total – being sold direct to fans.
> 
> The first batch of tickets go on sale to the general public from 12 June to 12 July 2019: the 1.5m tickets available at this stage represent a 50% increase on the quantity of neutral tickets that were sold for UEFA EURO 2016. A further 1m tickets (a 20% rise on the UEFA EURO 2016 total) will be on sale to supporters of the participating teams following the finals draw on Saturday 30 November this year.
> 
> Further tickets will be held back for sale to supporters of the sides that make it through the UEFA EURO 2020 play-offs, scheduled for Thursday 26 March and Tuesday 31 March 2020. A further draw will take place in April 2020 if required. These tickets will be sold in close cooperation with the national associations concerned.
> 
> _First application window_
> 
> The first tranche of tickets will be put on sale throughout the world via EURO2020.com. For all matches and categories where demand exceeds supply, tickets will be allocated by a fair and transparent lottery. Every applicant will have the same chance of success, irrespective of when their application is made between 12 June and 12 July 2019.
> 
> In order that more fans than ever can 'LIVE IT. FOR REAL', UEFA has ensured:
> 
> • Tickets will be available at under €100 for all 51 games, a total of 1.25m tickets.
> 
> • 13,000 category 3 'Fans First' tickets for both semi-finals and the final – a total of around 40,000 tickets – will be available at under €100. These represent 15% of stadium capacity. Fans can apply for 'Fans First' tickets between 12 June and 12 July 2019.
> 
> • Of the 51 matches, 44 will offer tickets for €50 or less, equating to 1 million tickets.
> 
> To guarantee fans are given every possible chance to secure tickets, those who are unsuccessful in their application in the July 2019 lottery phase will automatically be entered into the 'Fans First' programme. These fans will be the first to be informed about new UEFA EURO 2020 ticket availability (resulting from unsuccessful payments and ticket returns). Supporters in the 'Fans First' group will get an exclusive priority period to purchase such tickets.
> 
> _WIN TICKETS!_
> 
> Any fan who creates a EURO 2020 ticketing account online at EURO2020.com/tickets between 19 May 2019 and 11 June 2019 will be entered into a random draw to win two free category 1 tickets to an opening match at any venue. One lucky fan will also win two free category 1 tickets for the UEFA EURO 2020 final. Winners will be selected at random and all winners will be announced by the end of June 2019. Terms and conditions apply.
> 
> _Ticketing products_
> 
> To make it easy for everyone to understand the ticketing system, the number of available products has been simplified:
> 
> • Individual ticket: one match in one stadium
> 
> • 'Follow my team' ticket (sold from December 2019): A ticket allowing fans to attend a knockout stage match of their favourite team independently of the location of the match. If the team is eliminated before the knockout stage, 100% of the ticket price will be refunded.
> 
> UEFA will make a number of tickets available for disabled fans at every match, in the lowest price category, regardless of their location in the stadium. Disabled fans can also request a complimentary seat for an accompanying person.
> 
> _Hospitality packages_
> 
> UEFA will offer official hospitality packages at all stadiums from 12 June 2019. There are a range of options, starting from €780 per person, including private suites, business lounges and a more casual and livelier club. For more information, visit EURO2020.com/hospitality.
> 
> _Ticket categories and prices_
> 
> Tickets will be offered in three price categories for UEFA EURO 2020. The application of such principles outlined below is dependent on the seating configuration of each stadium.
> 
> *CLUSTER A: AMSTERDAM, BILBAO, COPENHAGEN, DUBLIN, GLASGOW, LONDON, MUNICH, ROME, ST PETERSBURG
> 
> Group stage and round of 16
> Category 3: €50
> Category 2: €125
> Category 1: €185
> 
> Quarter-finals and opening match (Munich, Rome, St Petersburg)
> Category 3: €75
> Category 2: €145
> Category 1: €225
> 
> CLUSTER B: BAKU, BUCHAREST AND BUDAPEST
> 
> Group stage, round of 16 and Baku quarter-final
> 
> Category 3: €30
> Category 2: €75
> Category 1: €125
> 
> SEMI-FINALS AND FINAL (LONDON)
> 
> Semi-finals
> 
> 'Fans First': €85
> Category 3: €195
> Category 2: €345
> Category 1: €595
> 
> Final
> 
> 'Fans First': €95
> Category 3: €295
> Category 2: €595
> Category 1: €945
> *
> 
> Value-added tax (VAT) applicable in each host country is included within the ticket price and will be covered by UEFA. All prices are in euros.
> 
> Attribution rules favour access for as many people as possible to 'LIVE IT. FOR REAL'
> 
> • Maximum four tickets per applicant and per match
> 
> • Maximum one match per day per applicant
> 
> • No obligation to buy a certain amount of tickets for group matches in the hope of getting a semi-final or final ticket
> 
> *Why are there different prices for different venues?
> 
> This decision to have different price clusters was made based on extensive research relating to the purchasing power and average income of residents within the host countries. Research showed that the purchasing power and average incomes of residents in Azerbaijan, Romania and Hungary were lower than in the nine other host countries.
> 
> The price clusters have been applied throughout the entire tournament. Consequently, tickets for the quarter-final in Azerbaijan are less expensive than tickets for the quarter-finals in Germany, Italy and Russia.*
> 
> _An official resale platform to combat black market sales_
> 
> A ticket resale platform will allow fans to offer their tickets for resale at face value via EURO2020.com/tickets. The ticket resale platform will be available in March/April 2020. This platform will enable fans to safely purchase tickets from other fans, through an official UEFA sales channel. This eliminates the risk of acquiring invalid or fraudulent tickets and ensures that sellers receive their money in full.


https://www.uefa.com/uefaeuro-2020/news/newsid=2604909.html


----------



## Spomasz

> I think you misjudge where this format has come from, poor demand for tickets at the Poland / Ukraine tournament, especially for the corporate packages


Can you show us the numbers?



> Volleyball and motor sports, especially F1, are pretty big in Brazil btw, probably bigger than rugby is here. Beyond those two interest drops quite a bit and you won't get the interest or participation that you do here for minor sports.


The one and only nation that is in for volleyball is Poland. And even that country can't guarantee full crow on biggest events- 5k average for whole WC with opening game on 60k stadium, 40% of tickets sold. That is very bad result keeping in mind tickets were for like 10 euro on average. In Brazil it is even worser and it looks like its 2nd country to be interested in voleyball. I haven't see fans from Brazil in any WC games in last 4 world cups- Japan 06, Italy 10, Poland 14 and Italy/ Bulgaria 18. Even though they always have been 1st or 2nd... In the domestic games they may or may not fill the 10k arna, but mostly for Nations League final. Heven't seen them interested in other games- when Poland is playing there with non-Brazil team its always like 80% free seats. 
I know Brazil like voleyball like no other nation (except Poland) and have some games for 40k crowds on the stadiums but its mostly very unique and rare. The reality is 40% of free seats on Nations League games hosted by them.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

kerouac1848 said:


> I disagree and I know the country well. I'd say football generates more interest here than there and I can think of a couple of Brazilians on SSC who'd agree. Not sure what you mean by saying they watch more diverse club football.
> 
> Volleyball and motor sports, especially F1, are pretty big in Brazil btw, probably bigger than rugby is here. Beyond those two interest drops quite a bit and you won't get the interest or participation that you do here for minor sports.


By more diverse club football I mean they watch a lot more foreign leagues as the Brasileirao isn't the highest quality. Helps that there are a lot of Brazilian players in just about any league you can mention.

There are big chunks of society in the UK who have nothing to do with football. Including lots who look down on it. Both codes of rugby and cricket aren't a thing over there. Formula 1 gets its largest attendances at Silverstone. Tennis and athletics are a much bigger deal here. Good addition of MMA to which I'll add boxing to an extent. Volleyball I agree with but overall far more focus on football over there. Not more passionate but a higher proportion of the population interested.


----------



## Guest

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> There are big chunks of society in the UK who have nothing to do with football. Including lots who look down on it. .


This is no different to anywhere else. The majority of people in any country dont care about sports fullstop, and the top sports have massive numbers that hate it. Can guarantee it’s the same in Brazil.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

Ticket portal has been updated. I've got nothing. I was applying for Wembley though so not surprising. Hopefully one of my friends got lucky.


----------



## aidan88

I applied for 6 games;

Baku (Group)
Budapest (Group)
Dublin (Group)
Glasgow (Group)
Dublin (R.of16)
London (Final)

Successful in only one of those requests. Looks like I'm going to Azerbaijan.


----------



## cyril sneer

Can anyone please explain to me the rationale as to why they always release tickets for games before anyone has qualified or the groups have been drawn?


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

cyril sneer said:


> Can anyone please explain to me the rationale as to why they always release tickets for games before anyone has qualified or the groups have been drawn?


This way they can sell a lot of tickets to the less appealing matches before anyone knows that they're unappealing. Otherwise there would be substantially more unsold tickets. Less of an issue for this tournament as the demand will be off the scale. People are prepared to gamble and UEFA (or FIFA) are prepared to take their money.


----------



## cyril sneer

I gathered it was probably orientated around money. Do they keep back a section of seats for those following either team playing? Or do those fans have to go to the black market to get tickets for their nation's games?


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

cyril sneer said:


> I gathered it was probably orientated around money. Do they keep back a section of seats for those following either team playing? Or do those fans have to go to the black market to get tickets for their nation's games?


There are multiple sales periods. This first one is blind as far as who plays. I believe 45% of the seats are being sold now. Sponsors and UEFA will take a fair chunk for themselves. Each team gets an allocation for their matches, I think 15% each, to sell through their FA. UEFA will sell more tickets in other windows once the draw is done but as you can see there won't be that many tickets left. The last lot are returns from sponsors, UEFA, national associations and some that have been held back for all sorts of other reasons.

When you see England or Germany or the Netherlands, etc, has the majority of the support in a stadium abroad then a lot of them have purchased from touts. Some just got lucky in the initial draw.


----------



## Spomasz

For me blind-lottery is good idea. I can get the tickets no matter which team would play on the stadiums I am going to visit. Even if i see Slovakia Hungary instead of Germany Croatia, I will be happy with that. In 2018 I couldn't afford to travel throughout all the Russia, so I applied for Moscow games. I was on Germany Mexico and Argentina Iceland and belive me- the amount of fans needed a ticket was great. Prices near stadiums was like 1200- 2500 USD and there were fans buying it! And they were just regular game in grup stage. 
Polish fans are travelling in big numbers so I can avoid next-phase ballot where there will be about 50k Poles for 2.5k tickets. If one of my game in city I can get to will be Poland's game, than I can see my country's playing. If not, I will be fine with Slovakia Albania.


----------



## ElvisBC

Spomasz said:


> For me blind-lottery is good idea. I can get the tickets no matter which team would play on the stadiums I am going to visit. Even if i see Slovakia Hungary instead of Germany Croatia, I will be happy with that. In 2018 I couldn't afford to travel throughout all the Russia, so I applied for Moscow games. I was on Germany Mexico and Argentina Iceland and belive me- the amount of fans needed a ticket was great. Prices near stadiums was like 1200- 2500 USD and there were fans buying it! And they were just regular game in grup stage.
> Polish fans are travelling in big numbers so I can avoid next-phase ballot where there will be about 50k Poles for 2.5k tickets. If one of my game in city I can get to will be Poland's game, than I can see my country's playing. If not, I will be fine with Slovakia Albania.


you were just lucky! you caught what were 3 or 4 best days of the 2018 world cup, that first weekend in moscow was simply amazing!


----------



## cyril sneer

Expressing glee about making a quick buck at the expense of proper fans wanting to see their nation play doesn't sit well with me. This is where the pre-draw sale tactic falls flat on its face. It inevitably results in the fans being fleeced.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

cyril sneer said:


> Expressing glee about making a quick buck at the expense of proper fans wanting to see their nation play doesn't sit well with me. This is where the pre-draw sale tactic falls flat on its face. It inevitably results in the fans being fleeced.


I agree. Can't get along with touting. I've never sold a ticket on for above face value for any event. Mind you I've never paid over face value either. Prices are high enough as it is. I have sold for less than face value. Generally I only have tickets that I want to use so very rarely have anything to sell. Only if someone can't make it at the last moment. Doing a trip abroad to a tournament is a privilege. I'd aim to get the tickets and travel sorted then hope to get lucky with the draw. Others want to see their team specifically and that is much trickier to do. If I've got a basic trip sorted including 3 or more matches then I'd want to try and get an England match on top. Or perhaps one of the big guns if they're nearby. Matches that don't involve your team are stress-free and can be more enjoyable.

In the end I've got tickets for the Wembley group matches as a friend was successful, was just uncontactable during the day yesterday. Two or Three England matches, unless we screw up qualification. That is fantastic but I won't get the feeling of joining in with someone else's party. It will be our party or our disappointment. Straight home if we lose, probably. Not the same as going abroad and exploring. Won't cause too much damage to the bank account though.


----------



## Tlg_55

UEFA Euro 2020 Stadiums

Video : https://youtu.be/0hZrBsKwuGI


----------



## k5villan

again my experience and understanding of the ticket lottery - 

UEFA has 4 groups for ticket sales, locals, neutrals in the lottery, corporate and then each countries FA 

the point of the tournament is a big celebration, if its 70k fans watching England play france in the allianz arean munich they dont want 35k England fans and 35k france fans, they want say 10k from each country, 10k from munich and the surrounding area 40k from all around the world and then 10k corporate

what happens is the 40k that are made available from the neutrals lottery are eligible for a ticket resale and ticket excahnge system after the draw is made (im sure the local ones are too) so inevitably they end up in the hands of english and French fans

i think it works, its inclusive and the demand is there to justify it, join the lottery, go see random teams, get involved and enjoy yourself its a great expereince


----------



## ElvisBC

k5villan said:


> .....the point of the tournament is a big celebration.....


the point of tournament is, as with any other, the same: big money!

and big celebration is only the world cup, euro can’t really do it!


----------



## Gombos

Spomasz said:


> For me blind-lottery is good idea.


the worst! some lottery simulators is not giving you chances to win if you registered the first. 



OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> Ticket portal has been updated. I've got nothing. I was applying for Wembley though so not surprising. Hopefully one of my friends got lucky.


hno: the same. I even applied for Budapest, not just for Romania. my friends got lucky with Bucharest, but just for some matches. can you believe that? 

is there anyone who won more round matches than one or two?


----------



## Gombos

the draw takes place in the dome of Romexpo in Bucharest, Romania soon on 30th November.










since 2017, they also added new pavilions:


----------



## szaasz

Tomorrow's match day in Budapest...:cheers:

Credit too tunneltime...



tunneltime said:


> *13.11.2019*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://twitter.com/lickthestamp_


----------



## tunneltime

^^ epper:

*Puskás Aréna, Budapest*









https://kep.cdn.indexvas.hu/1/0/3036/30363/303639/30363993_01d626d274bc0246b713e3041d3135ff_wm.jpg


----------



## tunneltime

^^ :cheers:









http://www.nemzetisport.hu/data/galeria/a-magyar-es-az-uruguayi-valogatott-edzese-a-puskas-arenaban-2341/1_SZM.JPG


----------



## copa olympic

There is advantage for some host teams
for example Italy and England
if Italy win group A they will play R16 in London then travel to Munich for the QF then back to London for the SF & F.
for England after playing the three group matches in Wembley they will go to Dublin for the R16 then Rome for the QF then back home for the SF & F.
taking this advantage by winning their groups after playing the 3 group matches at home will make their path to the final much easier for them and their fans.


----------



## Guest

Great lineup of qualified teams so far.

Belgium
Italy
Russia 
Poland
Ukraine
Spain
Turkey
France
England
Czech Republic
Finland
Sweden
Croatia
Austria
Netherlands
Germany

Heading into the last matchday, the likely other automatic qualifiers should be

Portugal
Switzerland
Wales
Denmark

The other 4 spots will be decided by playoffs.


----------



## fidalgo

trying to understand these new playoffs. 
lets see, the path A, only have one team that qualifies automatically into it. how the other 3 teams are selected?


----------



## Guest

fidalgo said:


> trying to understand these new playoffs.
> lets see, the path A, only have one team that qualifies automatically into it. how the other 3 teams are selected?


Path B, C and D. Path D is the only one we know all the participants already: Georgia, Belarus, Macedonia, Kosovo. Path C has Norway and Scotland plus two others to be determined. Path B Bosnia so far. And no one yet for Path A.


----------



## fidalgo

Iceland is sure in path A. but anyone else from A league is likely to miss directy qualification.

so, how are the other 3 found?


----------



## Guest

fidalgo said:


> Iceland is sure in path A. but anyone else from A league is likely to miss directy qualification.
> 
> so, how are the other 3 found?


You're right yeah, Iceland is in A but doesn't have seeding yet. 

With there being 4 paths (A, B, C, D), that's how you get your 4 qualification teams. The winner of each path will get a spot in the finals. Each path has 2 semi finals and a final to determine the winner of that path, which will be played next March.

So for example in Path D, one of Georgia, Belarus, Macedonia or Kosovo will qualify for Euro 2020.


----------



## fidalgo

yes i get that, but each path is filled with teams from Nations League teams. 
Nations League A, have only Iceland to fill the Euro2020 playoff path A

my question is, how path A will find the other 3 teams?


----------



## Guest

fidalgo said:


> yes i get that, but each path is filled with teams from Nations League teams.
> Nations League A, have only Iceland to fill the Euro2020 playoff path A
> 
> my question is, how path A will find the other 3 teams?


Oh I see what you're saying. 

It is complicated yes. Here's how things look from the current standings, according to UEFA: 

Current standings
On the basis of the current European Qualifiers standings, the following teams would be involved in the play-offs (teams in bold confirmed):

Path A: *Iceland*, *Bulgaria/Israel/Romania**, Wales/Slovakia/Republic of Ireland/*Northern Ireland***

Path B: *Bosnia and Herzegovina*, Wales/Slovakia/Republic of Ireland/*Northern Ireland***

Path C: *Scotland*, *Norway*, Serbia, *Bulgaria/Israel/Romania**

Path D: *Georgia, North Macedonia, Kosovo, Belarus*

*In the current scenario, a draw would decide which of Bulgaria, Israel or Romania would fill the empty slot in Path C, and which two would go into Path A.

**In the current scenario, a draw would decide which three of Wales, Slovakia, Republic of Ireland or Northern Ireland would join Bosnia and Herzegovina in Path B, and which one would go into Path A.


----------



## endrity

I think I got it, but it really does seem like a completely unnecessary over-complication. It might have been much better to have the teams divided into 4 pots according to their Nations League performance, and draw from the pots. 

That's always assuming the Nations League is worth keeping, which I am still not very sure about. I get it that national team games were becoming a bit stale and boring, with larger tournaments pretty much guaranteeing all top teams smooth entrance. But I am not sure top players need to play ever more games either.


----------



## Guest

endrity said:


> I think I got it, but it really does seem like a completely unnecessary over-complication. It might have been much better to have the teams divided into 4 pots according to their Nations League performance, and draw from the pots.
> 
> That's always assuming the Nations League is worth keeping, which I am still not very sure about. I get it that national team games were becoming a bit stale and boring, with larger tournaments pretty much guaranteeing all top teams smooth entrance. But I am not sure top players need to play ever more games either.


I still think there are big changes coming to the calendar. 

FIFA wants an expanded Club World Cup. 

UEFA wants an expanded Champions League. 

But you also have to look at domestic leagues and cups. A Bayern Munich player will play 4 less league games in a season than an English one, and also 1 cup less, which could result in playing 6 fewer games. Together that's 10 games fewer. Those international games all of a sudden don't look so bad for a Bayern player, but might look like a nightmare for a PL player. 

I don't think Nations League is going anywhere. It ensures matches of value to broadcasters, while removing matches against minnows. There's more chance of a qualification overhaul than the NL going away I think.


----------



## ElvisBC

5portsF4n said:


> Oh I see what you're saying.
> 
> It is complicated yes. Here's how things look from the current standings, according to UEFA:
> 
> Current standings
> On the basis of the current European Qualifiers standings, the following teams would be involved in the play-offs (teams in bold confirmed):
> 
> Path A: *Iceland*, *Bulgaria/Israel/Romania**, Wales/Slovakia/Republic of Ireland/*Northern Ireland***
> 
> Path B: *Bosnia and Herzegovina*, Wales/Slovakia/Republic of Ireland/*Northern Ireland***
> 
> Path C: *Scotland*, *Norway*, Serbia, *Bulgaria/Israel/Romania**
> 
> Path D: *Georgia, North Macedonia, Kosovo, Belarus*
> 
> *In the current scenario, a draw would decide which of Bulgaria, Israel or Romania would fill the empty slot in Path C, and which two would go into Path A.
> 
> **In the current scenario, a draw would decide which three of Wales, Slovakia, Republic of Ireland or Northern Ireland would join Bosnia and Herzegovina in Path B, and which one would go into Path A.


This is all correct, but UEFA is likely to move Romania into league A playoffs without draw due to special rules that apply to EURO hosts

It depends a lot on tonight's game in Cardiff as well, if Hungary falls into the playoffs it gets quite complicated hno:

This whole idea of pan-european Euro is insane, topped only by Qatar of course!


----------



## cyril sneer

I have to hold my hands up and say I still do not fully understand how these Euro play-offs work. I still think its a ridiculous idea anyway having the likes of Georgia, Macedonia, Kosovo, or Belarus at the finals.


----------



## k5villan

cyril sneer said:


> I have to hold my hands up and say I still do not fully understand how these Euro play-offs work.


is that you Aleksander Čeferin??



> I still think its a ridiculous idea anyway having the likes of Georgia, Macedonia, Kosovo, or Belarus at the finals.


it is but it fits with the voting system of UEFA, 1 FA 1 vote, so if you want power its pointless trying to tickle the bollocks of the really big boys you might as well offer some sort of sweeping incentive for all of the little ones, blatter and platini were masters of it, opening up the club world championship to smaller regions, using funds to prop up oceania nations football (good documentary on that and I cant remember the name of it) the CL qualifiers making it so the likes of BATE get through

I bet for the lower 75% of the UEFA nations this format is great and they'll vote for it every time


----------



## ElvisBC

k5villan said:


> is that you Aleksander Čeferin??
> 
> 
> 
> it is but it fits with the voting system of UEFA, 1 FA 1 vote, so if you want power its pointless trying to tickle the bollocks of the really big boys you might as well offer some sort of sweeping incentive for all of the little ones, blatter and platini were masters of it, opening up the club world championship to smaller regions, using funds to prop up oceania nations football (good documentary on that and I cant remember the name of it) the CL qualifiers making it so the likes of BATE get through
> 
> I bet for the lower 75% of the UEFA nations this format is great and they'll vote for it every time


and their visits to all those pacific islands "to observe improvements there" were great for football for sure hno: :colgate:

untimately, all those things you mentioned above, infantino brought them to perfection


----------



## Guest

cyril sneer said:


> I have to hold my hands up and say I still do not fully understand how these Euro play-offs work. I still think its a ridiculous idea anyway having the likes of Georgia, Macedonia, Kosovo, or Belarus at the finals.


It'll be one of Georgia, Macedonia, Kosovo and Belarus. 1 team among 23 others at the finals. It's not exactly a travesty. 

The other three playoff paths all provide teams which are absolutely good enough to be at the finals. 

It's a good way to integrate the Nations League into Euro qualifying, as it rewards winning your group. 

The downside to it is that you will get certain teams that don't do anything of note in the Nations League, and which have decent Euro qualifying but not good enough for automatic qualification, miss out. 

This time around, that's Greece, Albania and Slovenia. They'll feel a bit annoyed that teams which didn't do as well in Euro qualifying, but which won their League D groups in Nations League, get a playoff spot but they dont. 

Now, if UEFA expanded Euros to 32 teams, then no one of note would ever miss out you'd think. I'm not betting against that happening at some point.


----------



## Guest

k5villan said:


> .....a nations football (good documentary on that and I cant remember the name of it) the* CL qualifiers making it so the likes of BATE get through*
> 
> I bet for the lower 75% of the UEFA nations this format is great and they'll vote for it every time


So on the one hand people want to go back to the old European Cup when it was knockout against champions from each country, but on the other hand UEFA are idiots for allowing BATE (an actual national champion) an easier path into the Champions League?

Which is it then?


----------



## ElvisBC

5portsF4n said:


> It'll be one of Georgia, Macedonia, Kosovo and Belarus. 1 team among 23 others at the finals. It's not exactly a travesty.
> 
> The other three playoff paths all provide teams which are absolutely good enough to be at the finals.
> 
> It's a good way to integrate the Nations League into Euro qualifying, as it rewards winning your group.
> 
> The downside to it is that you will get certain teams that don't do anything of note in the Nations League, and which have decent Euro qualifying but not good enough for automatic qualification, miss out.
> 
> This time around, that's Greece, Albania and Slovenia. They'll feel a bit annoyed that teams which didn't do as well in Euro qualifying, but which won their League D groups in Nations League, get a playoff spot but they dont.
> 
> Now, if UEFA expanded Euros to 32 teams, then no one of note would ever miss out you'd think. I'm not betting against that happening at some point.


it is the only way to justify existence of such unnecessary bullshit competition that in reality has only one purpose, to fill UEFA pockets even more than before!

about extending Euro to 32 teams, yes, it is going to happen for sure ... for the same reason as above!


----------



## Guest

ElvisBC said:


> it is the only way to justify existence of such unnecessary bullshit comnpetition that in reality has only one purpose, to fill UEFA pockets even more than before!


I think the only way most members would agree to cut down on friendlies while lowering their chance of hosting games against bigger/more attractive teams was to offer them an alternate route into the Euros. 

If every member has 1 vote, then agreeing on the Nations League among 55 members would've had a fair few of them feeling uncertain at the prospect of having to play crap teams during international windows with no recourse to arrange higher profile friendlies. 

Allowing group winners into Euro playoffs was, at least from my point, the ace up the sleeve to signing off on the Nations League. It seems to me that everyone got what they wanted.


----------



## Guest

ElvisBC said:


> about extending Euro to 32 teams, yes, it is going to happen for sure ... for the same reason as above!


Hopefully it will lead to a revamp of qualification. If it goes to 32, then I think you have to look at using the Nations League as the qualifying process. The World Cup is different as Europe doesn't have that many spots, but I see no reason to have Euro qualifying if you have the Nations League and 32 teams at the Euros.


----------



## k5villan

japan are properly ****ed if the Olympics don't go ahead, its a huge hit financially


----------



## RobH

I was going by this, as the least-worst option - https://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=167185900&postcount=551


----------



## GunnerJacket

*Mod Note: *Keep to the topic of the thread, please. Thank you.


----------



## Gombos

I was sure they would cancel Tokyo, but now Euro will be also postponed!  I am sure.


----------



## flierfy

Here are two suggestions of what to do with this years Euro:

- play it this summer as planned just behind closed doors. But instead of spreading it all over the continent, one should in this extreme case reduce the travelling between venues and chose 4-6 new ones. Stadiums with a decent pitch and presentable dressing rooms in an area with enough accomodations for the 24 teams and a few cameramen. Nothing more would be needed.

- play it in January 2021. But due to the time of year one plays the entire tournament in a warm country like Portugal. The venues of 2004 are still there, they are still fairly modern and Portugal should be able to provide enough accomadation for 24 teams and their support.


----------



## copa olympic

I think the best option is to postpone the tournament to June-July 2021
the 12 cities are preparing for 6 years now so let them down after all that is not the best option
especially that some of them will not have another chance to host such big continental tournament any time soon
for the 2021 women's euro they can postpone it for two weeks to 21 July - 15 August instead of 7 July - 1 August
and for the new fifa club world cup it can be held in June 2022
I see that since this serious situation only started a few months before the original schedule and that such thing never happened before so they weren't prepared for such exceptional circumstance the change to the football calendar would be justifiable
finally we better wait and see what will be the final decisions of UEFA and FIFA.


----------



## RobH

RobH said:


> *Finish the league off in the summer
> Euros in 2021*
> Olympics in the sport-free summer of 2022
> World Cup at Christmas 2022 as planned
> 
> Maybe the Qatar World Cup is a blessing in disguise? :lol:


..



> Uefa have started to make plans to move the European Championships from this summer to 2021, ahead of a key Tuesday video conference that could determine the fate of the continental season, including the under-pressure Premier League.
> 
> On a day when the coronavirus crisis had its most disruptive effect on football – seeing the Spanish league suspended, Real Madrid quarantined and Brendan Rodgers admitting some of his Leicester City players had shown symptoms of the virus – the European governing body called an online meeting of key stakeholders to discuss what next for its major competitions.
> 
> The Independent has been told that “all options will be considered”, including the suspension or postponement of the Champions League and Euro 2020. The outcome of the video conference is to be crucial, as the planned start of the international tournament in Rome on 12 June is putting the football calendar under huge stress because of the lack of room to move. Any postponement would give the domestic competitions the breathing space to go on hiatus.
> 
> *Several sources have told the Independent that Uefa have contacted their outside agencies and told them to prepare for a shift to Euro 2021, and many within the organisation consider that “very likely”.*


https://www.independent.co.uk/sport...-postpone-premier-league-change-a9397971.html


----------



## slipperydog

> UEFA will discuss the postponement of Euro 2020 and potential cancellation of this season's Champions League and Europa League during an emergency video conference involving all 55 European football associations next Tuesday, sources have told ESPN.


https://www.espn.com/soccer/uefa-eu...-league-cancellation-euro-2020-delay-on-table


----------



## copa olympic

--


> *UEFA calls meeting of European Football Stakeholders*
> Thursday 12 March 2020
> _Stakeholders invited by UEFA to discuss European football's response to COVID-19_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the light of the ongoing developments in the spread of COVID-19 across Europe and the changing analysis of the World Health Organisation, UEFA has today invited representatives of its 55 member associations, together with the boards of the European Club Association and the European Leagues and a representative of FIFPro, to attend meetings by videoconference on Tuesday 17 March to discuss European football's response to the outbreak.
> 
> Discussions will include all domestic and European competitions,* including UEFA EURO 2020.*
> 
> Further communication will be made following those meetings.
> 
> UEFA





> *UEFA intend to postpone EURO 2020 to 2021 – L’Équipe*
> March 12th, 2020
> 
> *L’Équipe* report that governing body UEFA intend to announce on a video conference meeting with member countries on Tuesday 17th March that EURO 2020 will be postponed to 2021 and the Champions’ League and Europa League will be temporarily suspended until further notice.
> 
> The idea behind this is to give time into the summer for the two European competitions to finish, without being blocked by the current dates for EURO 2020 (12th June to 12th July). In order to be able to delay the Euros by a year, UEFA will need the green light from FIFA, who are currently planning a Club World Cup in the summer of 2021.
> 
> The newspaper now expects all domestic leagues to be suspended, but underlines that UEFA does not have control over them as they do not directly organise them.
> 
> GFNF


----------



## Gombos

they can skip seasons entirely and maybe rankings until now to decide next year participants if it can be played. that's why they say cancellation of European Cups. no problem. 

Euro 2020 can be played without problems in summer 2021. if everything is ok of course.


----------



## slipperydog

*Uefa poised to postpone Euro 2020 by 12 months*



> England’s plans to host the pinnacle of Euro 2020 will have to be put on hold as Uefa is poised to take the decision tomorrow to postpone the tournament by 12 months.
> 
> FA chiefs are understood to be receptive to the plan to shift the Euros to June 2021 given the chaos to sport caused by the coronavirus outbreak. It is hoped the move will provide enough flexibility for club competitions to be completed.
> 
> Gordon Taylor, the chief executive of the Professional Footballers’ Association, said postponing Euro 2020 would be a “positive step”, and that England’s domestic leagues should be completed even if it means delaying the start of next season.
> 
> “If the Euros is postponed it gives some flexibility,” Taylor said.


https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/sport/uefa-poised-to-postpone-euro-2020-by-12-months-s8gtwjckn


----------



## ElvisBC

main problem might be fifa club world cup scheduled for next summer as well. we should find out tomorrow what happens, or might happen!


----------



## RobH

Euro 2020 is now Euro 2021, 11 June to 11 July.


----------



## parcdesprinces

^^ Is that official? 

:dunno: 




PS: Sorry for the stupid question above . ... but I havent read this thread for a while. (true!)


----------



## RMB2007

> Euro 2020 has been postponed by one year until 2021 because of the coronavirus pandemic, says the Norwegian FA.
> 
> Uefa, European football's governing body, has been holding an emergency video conference involving major stakeholders on Tuesday.
> 
> The Norwegian FA says it was decided that the tournament will now take place from 11 June to 11 July next year.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/51909518


----------



## Quintana

Makes perfect sense. And since this whole all-over Europe thing was meant to commemorate the 60th anniversary we might as well shaft that and give it to Italy instead.


----------



## Andy-i

ElvisBC said:


> main problem might be fifa club world cup scheduled for next summer as well. we should find out tomorrow what happens, or might happen!



That is a mickey mouse tournament compared to the Euros.

I guess Fifa will either can it or try to re-arrange it (maybe pre-season, after the Euros)

The Women's Euros and Euro U21's will also be on next summer. 

They may move the Women's slightly as there is only a 4 day crossover but they could easily overlap if need be as only Wembley will be in use for Euro2021.

As for the U21's, they are on at the same time but in Hungary and Slovenia and The big Euro2021 stadium in Hungary is not being used.


----------



## Ioannes_

I have heard this news from SKYSCRAPERCITY, because we are homebound and 95% of the information is from COVID19. In Euskadi (Spain), headquarters of Euro2020, right now (17-3-2020) *there are 58 infected and one dead.*


----------



## slipperydog

Virtually no one cares about the Club World Cup besides Gianni Infantino who's mostly looking at the tournament as another way to pad FIFA's coffers.

With the Euros, Copa America, and Gold Cup all taking place in 2021, players obviously can't play in two tournaments simultaneously, nor sequentially, so seems highly unlikely the FIFA CWC proceeds as currently scheduled or in its current iteration.


----------



## copa olympic

UEFA official statement :



> *UEFA postpones EURO 2020 by 12 months*
> Tuesday 17 March 2020
> 
> _Priority given to completing domestic competitions in an unprecedented solidarity move by UEFA. Working group set up to examine possibilities for this season's UEFA Champions League and UEFA Europa League competitions._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *UEFA today announced the postponement of its flagship national team competition, UEFA EURO 2020, due to be played in June and July this year. The health of all those involved in the game is the priority, as well as to avoid placing any unnecessary pressure on national public services involved in staging matches. The move will help all domestic competitions, currently on hold due to the COVID-19 emergency, to be completed.*
> 
> *All UEFA competitions and matches (including friendlies) for clubs and national teams for both men and women have been put on hold until further notice. The UEFA EURO 2020 play-off matches and international friendlies, scheduled for the end of March, will now be played in the international window at the start of June, subject to a review of the situation.*
> 
> *A working group has been set up with the participation of leagues and club representatives to examine calendar solutions that would allow for the completion of the current season and any other consequence of the decisions made today.*
> 
> The decisions, taken by UEFA's Executive Committee, followed videoconference meetings held today with the presidents and general secretaries of the 55 national associations, as well as representatives of the European Club Association, European Leagues and FIFPro Europe, convened by UEFA President Aleksander Čeferin, to find a coherent plan to break the logjam of fixtures building up due to the spread of the virus across the continent.
> 
> Announcing the decisions, Aleksander Čeferin said:
> 
> "We are at the helm of a sport that vast numbers of people live and breathe that has been laid low by this invisible and fast-moving opponent. It is at times like these that the football community needs to show responsibility, unity, solidarity and altruism.
> 
> *"The health of fans, staff and players has to be our number one priority and, in that spirit, UEFA tabled a range of options so that competitions can finish this season safely and I am proud of the response of my colleagues across European football. There was a real spirit of cooperation, with everyone recognising that they had to sacrifice something in order to achieve the best result.*
> 
> *"It was important that, as the governing body of European football, UEFA led the process and made the biggest sacrifice. Moving EURO 2020 comes at a huge cost for UEFA but we will do our best to ensure that the vital funding for grassroots, women's football and the development of the game in our 55 countries is not affected. Purpose over profit has been our guiding principle in taking this decision for the good of European football as a whole.*
> 
> *"Football is an uplifting and powerful force in society. The thought of celebrating a pan-European festival of football in empty stadia, with deserted fan zones while the continent sits at home in isolation, is a joyless one and one we could not accept to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the competition.*
> 
> "I would like to thank the European Club Association, the European Leagues and FIFPro Europe for their great work today and for their cooperation. I would also like to thank from the bottom of my heart the 55 national associations, their presidents and general secretaries, and my colleagues from the Executive Committee for their support and wise decisions. The fine detail will be worked out in the coming weeks but the basic principles have been agreed and that is a major step forward. We have all shown that we are responsible leaders. We have demonstrated solidarity and unity. Purpose over profit. We've achieved this today.
> 
> *"I would also like to thank Alejandro Domínguez and CONMEBOL, who have agreed to move CONMEBOL's 2020 Copa America in order to follow the recommendations issued by the international public health organisations to enact extreme measures and as a result of EURO 2020 being postponed. This means that clubs and leagues in Europe will have as little disruption as possible in the availability of their players. These joint efforts and especially this coordinated and responsible decision, are deeply appreciated by the whole European football community.*
> 
> *"I would like to thank FIFA and its President, Gianni Infantino, who has indicated it will do whatever is required to make this new calendar work. In the face of this crisis, football has shown its best side with openness, solidarity and tolerance."*
> *
> UEFA EURO 2020 was scheduled to take place in 12 cities across Europe from 12 June to 12 July 2020. The proposed new dates are 11 June to 11 July 2021. UEFA would like to reassure existing ticket buyers and hospitality clients that if they cannot attend the tournament in 2021, the face value of their tickets and packages will be refunded in full. Within the next month, further information on the refund process will be communicated to existing ticket buyers via email and on euro2020.com/tickets.
> 
> Decisions on dates for other UEFA competitions, whether club or national team for men or women, will be taken and announced in due course.*
> 
> UEFA


----------



## CWells2000

Reading today that the English FA and UEFA are in talks about moving Euro 2020 to the UK according to a number of news outlets, but this has been denied by UEFA.

I personally have never got the idea why there should be 12 host cities spread across europe and it would be strange for it to go ahead in the current format especially in the era of COVID-19, I do think given that wembley is scheduled to host the semi finals and the final, it would make sense to move it over here and host it here in its entirety with the guarentees from the UK Government about fans returning in limited numbers.

I would assume that there would be a reduced number of stadiums, perhaps 6 venues each seating over 60,000 to allow for social distancing, that would mean two venues in London, as well as a venue in Glasgow, Cardiff, Manchester and Edinburgh

I would probably look at moving scotland games from Hampden to Celtic Park to allow for more fans to attend cause of social distancing.

Assuming that stadiums are open to 30% capacity, these would be the capacities.

Wembley Stadium - 27,000
Old Trafford - 22,948
Millenium Stadium - 21,900
Murrayfield - 20,250
London Stadium - 19,800
Celtic Park - 18,123


----------



## tunneltime

*UEFA Euro 2020 Qualifiers Map*










https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...p.png/800px-UEFA_Euro_2020_Qualifiers_Map.png

*Blue: Team qualified for UEFA Euro 2020 
Red: Team failed to qualify *


----------



## George_D

euro finals phase should be reduced to 16 teams


----------



## CWells2000

George_D said:


> euro finals phase should be reduced to 16 teams


Or look at scrapping the group stage for this edition only and instead having a straight knockout with 24 teams

Best 8 ranked sides given a bye to the second round, other 16 start in the first round.

Cuts the number of games, makes games more exicting and allows increased recovery time for players.


----------



## k5villan

George_D said:


> Tournament should be played in England since the semifinals and final had been awarded to that country


The country seemingly making the 2nd biggest mess of the situation in the world?


----------



## Temporarily Exiled

k5villan said:


> The country seemingly making the 2nd biggest mess of the situation in the world?


The Premier League has had multiple rounds of fixtures without major dramas, so protocols surrounding football matches seem to be sufficient.


----------



## k5villan

Temporarily Exiled said:


> The Premier League has had multiple rounds of fixtures without major dramas, so protocols surrounding football matches seem to be sufficient.


this will be with fans though which the government hasnt allowed yet and is seemingly nowhere near allowing

do we really want fans from half of europe travelling to england based on whats currently going on there?


----------



## Temporarily Exiled

k5villan said:


> this will be with fans though which the government hasnt allowed yet and is seemingly nowhere near allowing
> 
> do we really want fans from half of europe travelling to england based on whats currently going on there?


If you have 'fans from half of Europe' travelling _anywhere_ then there will be major issues. It will be home fans only or no fans at all.


----------



## k5villan

Temporarily Exiled said:


> If you have 'fans from half of Europe' travelling _anywhere_ then there will be major issues. It will be home fans only or no fans at all.


then put the tournament in the bin


----------



## Starscraper

Euro 2020: Uefa 'thinking about' switching tournament to one country


Aleksander Ceferin is weighing up whether to stage Euro 2020 in one country this summer, according to the Bayern Munich CEO, Karl-Heinz Rummenigge




www.theguardian.com





Uefa’s president, Aleksander Ceferin, is weighing up whether to stage the European Championship in one country this summer rather than across the continent as planned, according to the Bayern Munich CEO, Karl-Heinz Rummenigge.
The tournament, still titled Euro 2020, is scheduled to start on 11 June in 12 cities across Europe but Rummenigge said the concept was dreamed up before the Covid-19 outbreak.

“We must not forget that the idea of this special hosting of the tournament came about when the coronavirus didn’t exist … it was an initiative of the EU Commission that wanted to have football shown all over Europe,” he told German newspaper Muenchner Merkur/TZ.


Which countries could stage it on with only a few months notice?


----------



## 3tmk

They definitely should concentrate the Euro2020 to just a country or a cohosting duo.

Obviously recent hosts of the Euro/WC would be proper candidates.
The most obvious choice however would be the UK. But with the post-Brexit uncertainty, they might still have issues to resolve for hosting such an event. However if for covid measures' sake, UEFA decided to go without international travelers and only open the stadium gates to locals, the UK football fans would easily fill up the stadiums, and make it a whole ton of fun.


----------



## Pat Mustard

3tmk said:


> They definitely should concentrate the Euro2020 to just a country or a cohosting duo.
> 
> Obviously recent hosts of the Euro/WC would be proper candidates.
> The most obvious choice however would be the UK. But with the post-Brexit uncertainty, they might still have issues to resolve for hosting such an event. However if for covid measures' sake, UEFA decided to go without international travelers and only open the stadium gates to locals, the UK football fans would easily fill up the stadiums, and make it a whole ton of fun.


I do wonder if the current government wouldn't see hosting the whole of Euro 2020 as some kind of grand gesture and a justification for the twin ****-ups of Brexit and their handling of the pandemic. The vaccination rollout is just about the only thing they haven't made a complete mess of so far, and if the majority of the adult population (or certainly the most vulnerable groups) have received vaccines ahead of the summer then I think there is a real possibility the entire tournament could be held in the UK.

Logistically it would also probably be the least disruptive single host, given the number of games already being played at Wembley (and also in Glasgow, if they wanted to stick with the original games planned to take place there).


----------



## TEBC

3tmk said:


> They definitely should concentrate the Euro2020 to just a country or a cohosting duo.
> 
> Obviously recent hosts of the Euro/WC would be proper candidates.
> The most obvious choice however would be the UK. But with the post-Brexit uncertainty, they might still have issues to resolve for hosting such an event. However if for covid measures' sake, UEFA decided to go without international travelers and only open the stadium gates to locals, the UK football fans would easily fill up the stadiums, and make it a whole ton of fun.


also would be the most unpolite fans and the ones that would probably bring the most problems to the Organization Comitee. Considering the total Covid cases, some central European countries would be a safer choice


----------



## cyril sneer

I don't understand what on earth Brexit has got to do with ability of hosting a sports tournament for Pete's sake. It would be no different to Champions League games in England. 

I too think hosting it in one country will be the sensible option. I don't envisage spectators being allowed though. The whole tournament would have to be done on a bubble arrangement with little or no media access to the players in their hotels or stadiums. The worst thing that could happen would be for one of the teams to come down with the virus midway through the tournament.


----------



## Pat Mustard

TEBC said:


> also would be the most unpolite fans and the ones that would probably bring the most problems to the Organization Comitee. Considering the total Covid cases, some central European countries would be a safer choice


In 5 months time I would imagine it will be quite a different picture. No question the handling of the virus to date has been incredibly poor by the UK government, but in terms of vaccine rollout UK is well ahead of the rest of Europe. As of this weekend over 10% of the adult population will have received at least their first vaccine, which is 5 or 6 times the number in much of the rest of Europe - at current rates most people will be vaccinated ahead of the summer, in which case you might expect some crowds to be allowed into games. I’m not sure how that could happen elsewhere unless there is a huge upsurge in vaccinations very quickly.

I also fail to see how the fans would be any more of a problem than in many other countries. Certainly there is less violence in UK grounds than in many in central and Eastern Europe, or in Italy for example.


----------



## chibimatty

Would they consider holding it outside of Europe?


----------



## Quintana

No


----------



## Leedsrule

I wouldn't be so sure. Money talks, and the middle east has held several sporting events successfully during this pandemic. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Euros are held behind closed doors in the gulf.


----------



## mperuzov

Leedsrule said:


> I wouldn't be so sure. Money talks, and the middle east has held several sporting events successfully during this pandemic. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Euros are held behind closed doors in the gulf.


 Yes but in summer months with 40-50 degrees Celsius?  No f....way


----------



## slipperydog

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1354759199637565442


----------



## Rokto14

slipperydog said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1354759199637565442


That's a very interesting move... I think they are hoping that the vaccines will work with minimal side effects so that fans can come back to the stadiums.


----------



## Leedsrule

Rokto14 said:


> That's a very interesting move... I think they are hoping that the vaccines will work with minimal side effects so that fans can come back to the stadiums.


I think it's a really poor move from UEFA that could come back and bite them. 

Even if the richest European countries have vaccinated many of their most vulnerable, the poorest countries probably won't have by the summer, given your nationality affects your chances of getting a vaccine a lot more than your age or need.

Even the UK which is vaccinating more people than anywhere in Europe doesn't expect to finish vaccinating adults until September, and that's if they stay on schedule. I think it's brave to assume that stadiums across Europe will be open by then, and braver still to assume travel restrictions won't affect a cross-Europe event. Thousands of teams and fans moving across Europe is the worst thing to do whilst recovering from a pandemic. 

At the very least, UEFA should be preparing a comprehensive back-up plan, where teams can bubble together to minimise transport. Perhaps it's time to revisit the idea of holding the whole event in London, with teams based in the home counties, minimising transport and allowing teams to remain bubbled throughout.


----------



## cyril sneer

I agree, I don't see how this pan-continental tournament with fans criss-crossing across Europe is in any way workable given the situation.


----------



## Pat Mustard

Absolutely, from a logistical point of view alone a pan-European event is almost certainly going to be a non-starter when the countries involved will all have differing rules - at the moment plenty of countries do not have travel corridors in place, making it impossible potentially for teams to move between certain countries to play fixtures (a problem already affecting certain fixtures in Champions and Europa League). On top of this then there is the problem of preparing enough training facilities etc. to allow for teams to travel to venues ahead of match days - it might not be so much of a problem when games are centred around central Europe, but surely no-one playing in Baku is going to want to travel there with only 24 hours or less to prepare?

There needs to be an acknowledgement that this is simply not workable in the current climate, and start the arrangements for a tournament to be played in one place now. Even if a commitment has to be made to say no supporters will be allowed in, I just don't see how it will go ahead safely in any other way.


----------



## RobH

_*Ban on travelling fans for Euro 2020 group games*

Only home fans are expected to be allowed into group matches for this summer’s delayed Euro 2020 tournament and very limited numbers of travelling supporters will be permitted for the latter stages of the competition, it can be revealed.

Uefa is considering the drastic move of refunding all the tickets already sold and starting the process again from scratch once the venues have confirmed how many fans they will be permitted by their national governments.

The strong message from the representatives to Uefa was that it would be much easier to persuade governments to allow supporters into venues if only domestic fans were permitted. Sources in the meeting have told The Times that the Football Association’s plan for Wembley Stadium — which is hosting England’s three group games, a round-of-16 match, both semi-finals and the final — is for the venue to be 30 per cent to 35 per cent full, based on one-metre social distancing.

However, organisers have been told that even a slight relaxation in social distancing requirements could mean that Wembley is up to 50 per cent full — which would allow 45,000 supporters to attend — and that the extra fans could be accommodated with as little as three weeks’ notice.

FA chiefs are understood to have told Uefa they would ideally like to have some fans, perhaps 2,000 or 3,000, for the semi-finals and final, travelling from abroad by maintaining bubbles. They would be flown into London on charter flights, taken straight to the stadium and then back to the airport directly after the match, with minimal contact with the local population._

More @ Ban on travelling fans for Euro 2020 group games


----------



## cyril sneer

Yeah sure, just a bubble for 3,000 people needed then....


----------



## aidan88

June is a long way off. Understandable for them to be making preparations for each eventuality but no need to make a decision at this point.


----------



## Eurostallion1

I think UEFA will be watching the Champions League last 16 ties that are being played at neutral venues with interest.

I’m sure UEFA would prefer to push ahead with the same match schedule and venues but they might be forced to change if governments take the matter out of UEFA’s hands by imposing travel bans or unbearable restrictions. 

Several matches in the round of 16 have been switched to venues in different countries at short notice to get around travel bans. UEFA might find themselves forced to be flexible if things change at the last minute. My guess is that more matches get moved to other existing venues rather rather than new venues being used at the last minute. I doubt we’ll see anything as radical as the whole tournament staged in one country. It would probably be too late to arrange it now.


----------



## Pat Mustard

Eurostallion1 said:


> I think UEFA will be watching the Champions League last 16 ties that are being played at neutral venues with interest.
> 
> I’m sure UEFA would prefer to push ahead with the same match schedule and venues but they might be forced to change if governments take the matter out of UEFA’s hands by imposing travel bans or unbearable restrictions.
> 
> Several matches in the round of 16 have been switched to venues in different countries at short notice to get around travel bans. UEFA might find themselves forced to be flexible if things change at the last minute. My guess is that more matches get moved to other existing venues rather rather than new venues being used at the last minute. I doubt we’ll see anything as radical as the whole tournament staged in one country. It would probably be too late to arrange it now.


I think it is inevitable that the tournament will have to change in some form, and some of the existing venues removed whilst others take on more games. It still won't solve all of the problems, however, because as you say there is so much uncertainty about what restrictions might be in place, and there will certainly be a difference in terms of if and how many spectators will be allowed into stadia - in some they could be full by the end of the tournament (subject to certain restrictions on entry), in others still completely empty.

Realistically, plans do need to be put in place now to hold the competition in one country, to allow a few months for logistical planning. Unlike league competitions (or even Champions League), there is no room in the schedule to move matches around if there is a problem with a particular host country during the tournament. Basing everything in one country at least means only having one set of rules in place in terms of travel etc.

Unfortunately, UEFA seem wedded to the current plan and won't be proactive enough to change it until absolutely forced to, by which time it could compromise the whole thing. I know a lot of money has gone into the hosting process for some countries, but without having fans able to travel or in attendance then surely it would be better to hold over this version of the tournament for another time.


----------



## Ioannes_

*The Bilbao venue is in danger for the postponed European Championship
The Associated Press maintains that UEFA is considering leaving out San Mamés, as well as the cities of Dublin and Glasgow*

¡Plan B in England!
UEFA could turn to another stadium in London, with the newest and largest stadium in the country. It is Tottenham's field, with capacity for 62,000 fans to fix the mess. Stadiums in Manchester or Liverpool could also be considered to distribute the matches that had been planned in Bilbao, Dublin and Glasgow, thus completing a restructuring where the presence of the public would prevail. Remember that the Premier League will have spectators at the end of May in their fields.

*....I will enjoy a lot when Florentino Pérez destroys UEFA by accelrating the creation of the Super League, to pay for the new Santiago Bernabeu. 









Peligra la sede de Bilbao para la Eurocopa aplazada


Associated Press sostiene que la UEFA estudia dejar fuera a San Mamés, así como las ciudades de Dublín y Glasgow.




as.com










Cómo sería la Superliga europea: Cuántos y qué equipos jugarían, cuando empieza, formato y qué pasa con la Champions League | Goal.com


Cómo sería la Superliga europea: Cuántos y qué equipos jugarían, cuando empieza, formato y qué pasa con la Champions League




www.goal.com




*


----------



## RobH

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1376987783416406023


----------



## MikeC9180

I agree with many other posts that it is madness to assume that fans will be able to travel across Europe willy-nilly in the aftermath (hopefully) of this pandemic. You would also have to question if a competition of this nature could ever be construed as fair if only home fans are allowed in. Surely this would create an unfair advantage for home nations and the sporting integrity of the tournament would have to be called into question?

Better off to pick a city (Probably London) to host all of it as ohters have suggested. Seeing as capacity wouldn't therefore be an issue, I would suggest something like the following as stadia definitley up to standard:

Wembley
Twickenham
London Stadium
Tottenham Hotspur Stadium
Emirates
Chelsea
Brentford

These stadia as possibles as possibly not up to standard (no offence to anyone that's a fan of these clubs!)

Selhurst Park
Charlton
QPR
Wimbledon??

Could even extend to a few that are not that far away from London such as:

Brighton
Reading

As someone alluded to earlier it would be relatively easy to keep all of the squads in a bubble to ensure the tournament can go ahead without hindrance, the pitches should be too adversely affected by having tons of games in one or two grounds, plenty of top notch training facilities available and no need to spread a tournament out as there will be no financial benefit to anyone (not significantly in any case) of having thousands of tourists decending on them to spend their money.


----------



## Ramanaramana

While i dont believe uefa would do that, Im more curious why you think Brentford is suitable but Selhurst park, loftus road and the Valley aren’t? These are Premier league standard grounds.


----------



## CWells2000

I think its likely more matches will be moved to England.

I think its a given that Dublin, Glasgow and Bilbao will all be cut

I have heard that Munich could be at risk as well.


----------



## k5villan

Ramanaramana said:


> While i dont believe uefa would do that, Im more curious why you think Brentford is suitable but Selhurst park, loftus road and the Valley aren’t? These are Premier league standard grounds.


are you suggesting that brentfords brand new stadium would be less suitable than selhurst park?

it wont be

UEFA would probably like QPRs swanky corporate bar though


----------



## Ramanaramana

k5villan said:


> are you suggesting that brentfords brand new stadium would be less suitable than selhurst park?
> 
> it wont be
> 
> UEFA would probably like QPRs swanky corporate bar though


I didnt suggest that at all. I was asking him why Brentford is deemed suitable but all those other stadiums in London arent, when they are perfectly fine stadiums that have hosted top level football for decades.

And anyway, in this hypothetical, it wouldnt hurt to have a few stadiums south of the Thames. Valley, Selhurt, Millwall would all be fine choices and give the south of London representation


----------



## k5villan

UEFA have a qualification system for grounds, not sure how it works anymore if im honest, was an old star system, things like accessibility, facilities etc

it would be surprising if a 97 year old selhurst park had a better rating than brentfords brand new ground, something has gone very wrong at brentford if thats the case, the age factor will work against it not for it


----------



## Ramanaramana

Just to repeat, not questioning whether selhurst is better than brentford. The initial comment questioned the ability of selhurst park to host matches at all, which I find odd seeing as it’s your typical English ground. It has a good pitch, all the broadcasting area requirements, and would give London southern representation.


----------



## Leedsrule

Ramanaramana said:


> Just to repeat, not questioning whether selhurst is better than brentford. The initial comment questioned the ability of selhurst park to host matches at all, which I find odd seeing as it’s your typical English ground. It has a good pitch, all the broadcasting area requirements, and would give London southern representation.


I'd support giving south London better representation, but I suppose if crowds aren't allowed, then it doesn't matter where games are played. If crowds are allowed, then none of these stadiums meet UEFA's minimum of 30,000 seats to hold Euros games.

Though Selhurst park is used in the Premier League, it only does so with several concessions, as the regulations for existing stadia are less onerous than for new builds. CPFC are planning a new main stand which will significantly improve the media, broadcasting and hospitality facilities. Until that's built, I suspect Brentford's brand new stadium probably has better, more spacious facilities.

It's not just facilities either. As mentioned above, things like accessibility, pitch size and even the size of the changing rooms matters.

Could easily check this in the planning documentation (which will include existing plans in the case of CPFC), which I don't have time to find, but they're worth looking at if you're interested.

The Den is in decent nick but I doubt the Valley still meets modern PL regulations. Loftus Road barely still gets a safety certificate, it's non compliant in so many ways. Still, in the hypothetical scenario in which the whole tournament is held in London maybe that doesn't matter- but in my view using Brighton, Southampton and Milton Keynes is more likely if crowds are allowed.


----------



## aidan88

Ramanaramana said:


> Just to repeat, not questioning whether selhurst is better than brentford. The initial comment questioned the ability of selhurst park to host matches at all, which I find odd seeing as it’s your typical English ground. It has a good pitch, all the broadcasting area requirements, and would give London southern representation.


Too many restricted views and wooden seats. The facilities are just inadequate and unacceptable. 










Not my picture but I've had similar views to this on many occasions.


----------



## RobH

Eh?


----------



## Eurostallion1

Decisions expected today. The rumour is that Dublin will lose all four of its games and the games will be dispersed to four other venues with Wembley getting the last 16 game. Bilbao’s games are going to Seville, the Ramos Sanchez Pizjuan. The future of Munich’s games is unclear. It seems like the Bavarian state government has been doing some grandstanding but there still might be a deal.


----------



## Eurostallion1

https://www.sportschau.de/fussball...fans-zuschauer-stadien-entscheidung-100.html 

This article in Germans suggests that Munich has been approved to
host its games with 25% capacity.


----------



## TEBC

it is official:

*Change of venues for some UEFA EURO 2020
matches announced*
23 April 2021
_Matches in Munich confirmed with a minimum of 14,500 spectators –
Seville replaces Bilbao – Dublin matches moved to Saint Petersburg and London .

https://www.uefa.com/insideuefa/mediaservices/mediareleases/news/0268-121bc78c82d5-1ba16401b4f0-1000--euro-2020-venue-changes/ _


----------



## Red85

San Mames is off. Pity.

Is the reason stated the real reason or is there something other going on? Like the relation with the Basque country?


----------



## Eurostallion1

TEBC said:


> it is official:
> 
> *Change of venues for some UEFA EURO 2020
> matches announced*
> 23 April 2021
> _Matches in Munich confirmed with a minimum of 14,500 spectators –
> Seville replaces Bilbao – Dublin matches moved to Saint Petersburg and London .
> 
> https://www.uefa.com/insideuefa/mediaservices/mediareleases/news/0268-121bc78c82d5-1ba16401b4f0-1000--euro-2020-venue-changes/ _


So it turns out that the stadium they've switched to in Seville is not the Ramos Sanchez Pizjuan but the semi abandoned La Cartuja. For those who don't know la Cartuja is an Athletics stadium that was built in the late 90s as part of a failed Olympic bid. It has no permanent tenant and has only been used occasionally for the odd Cup final or international as well as other sporting events and concerts. However, I didn't think it had been used for a football match in over a decade and was not being maintained properly. I had assumed that Sevilla FC's Ramos Sanchez Pizjuan would be the venue given that it's a proper football stadium, it was recently renovated and only a couple of weeks ago hosted some Champions League games at short notice as a neutral venue.

Hard luck to Sweden, Slovakia and Poland who now have to travel between venues in the opposite corners of Europe to play their group games.

Potentially good news for England also if they win their group and go all the way, they'll get 6 out of 7 games at Wembley. 

I think it was the opposition of the Basque authorities that did for Bilbao in the end. Clearly, the government in Madrid was not the one opposing crowds or they wouldn't have allowed Seville either.


----------



## Kepa_Jametxo

Red85 said:


> San Mames is off. Pity.
> 
> Is the reason stated the real reason or is there something other going on? Like the relation with the Basque country?


There were protests against the Euro in the Basque Country, but the real reason is that here the Covid situation is really bad.


Eurostallion1 said:


> For those who don't know la Cartuja is an Athletics stadium that was built in the late 90s as part of a failed Olympic bid. It has no permanent tenant and has only been used occasionally for the odd Cup final or international as well as other sporting events and concerts. However, I didn't think it had been used for a football match in over a decade and was not being maintained properly.


Nowadays, the RFEF (Spanish Football Federation) is trying to use it as much as possible. The Copa del Rey finals from 2020 to 2024 will be played there, and many matchs of the national team are/will be played there. The RFEF also promised that they will remove the athletic tracks, but nowadays there are no plans.
Pd: RAMÓN Sánchez Pizjuán, not Ramos Sánchez Pizjuán. 😉


----------



## Laurence2011

imo, they should make that the Spanish national stadium


----------



## Leedsrule

Kepa_Jametxo said:


> Nowadays, the RFEF (Spanish Football Federation) is trying to use it as much as possible. The Copa del Rey finals from 2020 to 2024 will be played there, and many matchs of the national team are/will be played there. The RFEF also promised that they will remove the athletic tracks, but nowadays there are no plans.
> Pd: RAMÓN Sánchez Pizjuán, not Ramos Sánchez Pizjuán. 😉


I think 'removing' the athletics track here could be a fairly straightforward and worthwhile project. You could do something like West ham have, where semi-permanent lower tier stands are built over the athletics track, but could be removed later if Seville ever hosts the Olympics or a major IAAF event. Not ideal, but the existing geometry of the bowl suggests that it could be done far more elegantly than in London, and for a fraction of the cost of a permanent rebuilt like in San Sebastian/ Madrid's Metropolitano. It could become the default national stadium of the Spanish team as suggested above.


----------



## tunneltime

*



*


----------



## Ioannes_

[QUOTE = "Leedsrule, publicación: 173155335, miembro: 598783"]
Creo que 'eliminar' la pista de atletismo aquí podría ser un proyecto bastante sencillo y que valga la pena. Podría hacer algo como el West Ham, donde se construyen gradas semipermanentes de nivel inferior sobre la pista de atletismo, pero podría eliminarse más tarde si Sevilla alguna vez alberga los Juegos Olímpicos o un evento importante de la IAAF. No es ideal, pero la geometría existente del cuenco sugiere que podría hacerse con mucha más elegancia que en Londres, y por una fracción del costo de una reconstrucción permanente como en el Metropolitano de San Sebastián / Madrid. Podría convertirse en el estadio nacional predeterminado de la selección española como se sugirió anteriormente.
[/CITA]

Los arquitectos de este estadio son los mismos que los del Wanda Metropolitano.
-De hecho nacieron en Sevilla.
-La solución para hacer de La Cartuja un "Estadio Nacional", una vez ya construida, y sea un "Elefante Blanco", es la misma que se hizo con el Estadio d la Comunidad de Madrid (hoy estadio Atlético de Madrid) : crear una nueva tribuna excavada en las pistas de atletismo, manteniendo el óvalo para instalar una plataforma voladora en anticipación a la realización de un hipotético evento atlético.
-La idea de "Estadio Nacional" no es descabellada: Sevilla es una ciudad con una amplia oferta hotelera, conectados por tren de alta velocidad, un gran aeropuerto y muy atractivo para visitar.
Sería una solución neutral al centrismo de Madrid.
A los aficionados del Norte, aunque distantes, les gusta visitar tierras cálidas donde comen y beben bien.
-Sevilla FC, pierde una maravillosa oportunidad despreciando este estadio; Técnicamente ya es un Club de la Clase Media-Alta pero insiste en hacer pifias en su antiguo estadio.


----------



## Ramanaramana

Watching highlights of the past 3 Euros, one of the best things about the tournament is the atmosphere generated at both ends of a ground. It's like watching a crosstown rivalry twice a day for 3 weeks, and truly feels like there are no corporates or neutrals at matches. Some of the best atmospheres were in intimate 30,000 seat stadiums.

And what do we have to look forward to this month?

A sprinkling of fans spread out across massive stadiums.... so fkn depressing.


----------



## Rokto14

Ramanaramana said:


> Watching highlights of the past 3 Euros, one of the best things about the tournament is the atmosphere generated at both ends of a ground. It's like watching a crosstown rivalry twice a day for 3 weeks, and truly feels like there are no corporates or neutrals at matches. Some of the best atmospheres were in intimate 30,000 seat stadiums.
> 
> And what do we have to look forward to this month?
> 
> *A sprinkling of fans spread out across massive stadiums.... so fkn depressing.*


COVID-19 be like, "Reality can be whatever I want."


----------



## alexandru.mircea

The half empty stadiums will look bad in hindsight as time will pass, but right now I cannot wait for the EURO to start, I am really happy at the prospect, especially after two European club finals with fans in.


----------



## Maartendev

Geen 12.000 maar 16.000 toeschouwers in Arena tijdens EK


Per EK-wedstrijd in Amsterdam zijn 4.000 meer toeschouwers welkom dan oorspronkelijk gepland was. Dat heeft de organisatie bekendgemaakt.




nos.nl





Dutch article which mentions that the limited capacity in Johan Cruijff Arena is increased from 12.000 to 16.000 during Euro 2020. It was also good to see that there were spectators allowed in Europa League and Champions League finals.

To increase the atmosphere even more, the UEFA should allow the good old Vuvuzela temporary


----------



## Red85

Maartendev said:


> Geen 12.000 maar 16.000 toeschouwers in Arena tijdens EK
> 
> 
> Per EK-wedstrijd in Amsterdam zijn 4.000 meer toeschouwers welkom dan oorspronkelijk gepland was. Dat heeft de organisatie bekendgemaakt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nos.nl
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dutch article which mentions that the limited capacity in Johan Cruijff Arena is increased from 12.000 to 16.000 during Euro 2020. It was also good to see that there were spectators allowed in Europa League and Champions League finals.
> 
> To increase the atmosphere even more, the UEFA should allow the good old Vuvuzela temporary


No vuvuzela please.. please no..


----------



## ElvisBC

just realized the whole thing kicks off today ….. zero flair or atmosphere


----------



## Ramanaramana

ElvisBC said:


> just realized the whole thing kicks off today ….. zero flair or atmosphere


I'm much sadder about the attendance caps than what Rome city centre or downtown Norwich feels like right now, as for me a tournament is defined by what goes on inside the stadiums on matchdays......the quality of football + atmosphere of fans.

I will admit the pandemic will hit those who like to get on the piss and go to pubs with their flags much more than me though, as I have never cared for that side of things. 

The empty stadiums will hurt, but I'm buzzing about the actual matches kicking off. People might agree that France is a standout, but I have never been impressed by them during the 2016 final run or the 2018 world cup run. Any one of France, England, Germany, Italy, Spain, Belgium, Portugal have a real shot at winning the whole thing....I would have included the Dutch with Koeman but not with De Boer..... so can't wait for the matches to start.


----------



## TommyVercetti

ElvisBC said:


> just realized the whole thing kicks off today ….. zero flair or atmosphere


 Semis and the Final are worth watching, maybe.


----------



## slipperydog

I'm ready for the national anthems during England v Scotland


----------



## Ramanaramana

Absolutely sickening, cant even believe it happened. Complete state of disbelief. One of the best playmakers of the past decade. Going to have trouble falling asleep now as it’s 3am in Australia but I pray to wake up to news that Eriksen is alive.


----------



## Ramanaramana

Ramanaramana said:


> Absolutely sickening.....


Good news thankfully, though I suspect that's the end of a career for one of the great playmakers of his generation.

Uefa need to stop giving Baku any games in whatever competition, that much should be clear by now. Cavernous and oval, and lack of interest in anything other than Azerbaijani teams from locals. 

Parken Stadion looked good even with low capacity limit, looked much fuller than expected. Zenit stadium also has a good vibe to it with small capacity.


----------



## bongo-anders

Not that football is the most important thing in Denmark at the moment but the capacity at Parken will be increased from 15.900 to 25.000 for the last 2 group games and Il'l guess the round of 1/8 game as well.

It was announced Thursday morning but DBU couldn't make it in time for the game yesterday.


----------



## Ramanaramana

4 of the 6 teams that played all their group stage matches at home have reached semis. A fifth, Germany, was knocked out by one of the 4. Only Netherlands failed, losing to Czechs.


----------



## RobH

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1413479521278439424


----------



## Ranma Saotome

It wasn't needed to wait the itinerant Euro starts to realize how disadvantageous this format would be for non-host teams. By the way, this was a Platini's invention, something he wasn't man enough even to suggest in public, using instead a few low menials to do it for him. Ceferin kept it, but it surely won't and shouldn't be repeated. Eight or nine stadiums in up to three bordering countries are sufficient for the 24-team competition.


----------



## flierfy

Fans were actually the biggest beneficiaries of this format and the big ground capacities it provided. Making use of big and existing stadiums is in fact the way forward, picking a host city in Asia isn't. Neither was it particularly smart to pre-selecting venues for each group. It overcomplicated the qualifying process unnecessarily. Other than that it was a great tournament which even withstood the shocks of a pandemic.


----------



## Troopchina

Nah, it wasn't great at all.


----------



## Ramanaramana

In terms of the football played, it's been the best tournament since 2008. Far bigger selection of good or great matches compared to 2012 and 2016.

In other respects, it's been worse than those tournaments. The first reason is the home advantage bestowed on several teams. All the semifinalists played group stages at home. Some, like England, played most knockouts at home too. In deciding the best nation, you want to avoid scenarios that give advantages to some teams over others, and this tournament didn't do that enough.

The bigger problem I have is that a great tournament is defined by the atmosphere created by fans. Unlike the World Cup, the Euros often feels like clubs playing against eachother. Aside from a handful of matches, that atmosphere wasn't there, and the spectacle suffered.

That said, I'm only rating it as a neutral. People will rate it depending on how they connected with it. In England it'll be folklore for decades to come, in Germany it won't be remembered at all.

But I thought overall is was more enjoyable than 2016 and 2012.


----------



## Ranma Saotome

Ramanaramana said:


> In terms of the football played, it's been the best tournament since 2008. Far bigger selection of good or great matches compared to 2012 and 2016.
> 
> In other respects, it's been worse than those tournaments. The first reason is the home advantage bestowed on several teams. All the semifinalists played group stages at home. Some, like England, played most knockouts at home too. In deciding the best nation, you want to avoid scenarios that give advantages to some teams over others, and this tournament didn't do that enough.
> 
> The bigger problem I have is that a great tournament is defined by the atmosphere created by fans. Unlike the World Cup, the Euros often feels like clubs playing against eachother. Aside from a handful of matches, that atmosphere wasn't there, and the spectacle suffered.
> 
> That said, I'm only rating it as a neutral. People will rate it depending on how they connected with it. In England it'll be folklore for decades to come, in Germany it won't be remembered at all.
> 
> But I thought overall is was more enjoyable than 2016 and 2012.


I couldn't agree more. Best footballing Euro since 2008, with some memorable matches, but undeniably flawed by some almost empty stadiums (I don't need to say why) and for being spreaded around the continent.


----------



## Troopchina

Advantage for home teams
No host country
Empty stadiums
Stupid format where a team with 1 win and 2 losses advance from their group
Lopsided knockout phase draw

Worst Euro ever


----------



## bongo-anders

Troopchina said:


> Advantage for home teams
> No host country
> Empty stadiums
> Stupid format where a team with 1 win and 2 losses advance from their group
> Lopsided knockout phase draw
> 
> Worst Euro ever



But that team (I think you mean Denmark) would also have qualified with the 16 and 8 team setup.


----------



## Troopchina

Ukraine was 3rd in the group with 3 points and advanced.

Also some group winners got to play 3rd seed teams in the knockout phase while others got 2nd seeded teams.... its a mess


----------



## Ranma Saotome

Troopchina said:


> Ukraine was 3rd in the group with 3 points and advanced.
> 
> Also some group winners got to play 3rd seed teams in the knockout phase while others got 2nd seeded teams.... its a mess


This is the biggest inconvenient with the 24-team format, since it rewards failed third placed teams. A second stage with 4 groups of three teams could be an alternative, fitting into the 51-games schedule.


----------



## Troopchina

Congratulations Italy, well deserved


----------



## Ranma Saotome

By the way, congrats Italy!
























Italy England Euro 2020 Pictures and Photos - Getty Images


----------



## Florio

Thank you guys!
But in the end it was a spectacular tournament, not only for Italy! I don't want to see anymore a format like this, but after 18 months like this it was amazing to have audience!


----------



## nenad_kgdc

The best tournament ever!!!


----------



## ElvisBC

nenad_kgdc said:


> The best tournament ever!!!


if you mean by football played you might be right, everything else was miles away from anything positive!


----------



## nenad_kgdc

Of course i reffered to football only, I am aware that everything else was a mess, and not only due to COVID. But football was excited, lot of goals, penalty series, unexpected results, many various records (some very very old) broken...


----------

