POLAND & UKRAINE - UEFA EURO 2012 [Archive]

Kuvvaci

July 8th, 2005, 06:38 PM

http://www.uefa.com/multimediafiles/photo/uefa/keytopics/529058_biglandscape.jpg

The Stadiums:

Poland

Warsaw National Stadium - Warsaw
Capacity: 55 920

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/4774/stadionnarodowy14.jpg
http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/6448/stadionnarodowy15.jpg
http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/5276/stadionnarodowy16.jpg
http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/6209/stadionnarodowy17.jpg
http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/255/stadionnarodowy18.jpg

Baltic Arena - Gdansk
Capacity: 45 000

http://i38.tinypic.com/4ztedu.jpg

http://i36.tinypic.com/rqzq61.jpg

http://i34.tinypic.com/ws2rro.jpg

http://i36.tinypic.com/161yjqh.jpg

Wroclaw Arena - Wroclaw
Capacity: 46 000

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/9564/wizualizacja27.jpg

http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/2921/przekroj3d960.jpg

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/6857/fasada.jpg

http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/1476/przekrojkolor.jpg

Poznan Stadium - Poznan
Capacity: 47 000

http://www.gazetainwestor.pl/inne/foty/wizualizacje/stadion/stadion08.jpgg

http://www.2012.org.pl/images/stories/stadion_poznan/poznan_01.jpg

http://www.lechpoznan.pl/pliki/cms/131/stadion_dl_2_dfx_0000_a.jpghttp://www.lechpoznan.pl/pliki/cms/131/stadion_dl_dfx_3_0000_a.jpg
http://www.lechpoznan.pl/pliki/cms/131/stadion_dl_2_dfx_0159_a.jpghttp://www.lechpoznan.pl/pliki/cms/131/stadion_dl_dfx_3_0135_a.jpg

Chorzow Stadium - Chrozow (reserve)
Capacity: 56 000

http://bi.gazeta.pl/im/1/5042/z5042561X.jpg

http://bi.gazeta.pl/im/0/5042/z5042560X.jpg

http://bi.gazeta.pl/im/9/5042/z5042559X.jpg

http://bi.gazeta.pl/im/2/6436/z6436682X.jpg

Henryka Reymana Stadium- Krakow (reserve)
Capacity: 33 000

http://img374.imageshack.us/img374/8711/stadionwislykrakow07qj9.jpg

http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/2245/stadionwislykrakow08dg4.jpg

Ukraine

Dnotesk
Capacity:55 000 people

http://www.scm.com.ua/img/photogallery/63990?photoId=63990&imageType=2

http://bi.gazeta.pl/im/1/4038/z4038101X.jpg
-
http://bi.gazeta.pl/im/0/4038/z4038100X.jpg

Olympic Stadium Kiev
Capacity:69 000 people

[Kiev Olympic Stadium was to be upgraded, but a new stadium will now be built - No pics yet]

FC Metalist's Stadium - Kharkiv
Capacity:42 000 people

http://www.metallist.kharkov.ua/components/com_ponygallery/img_pictures/originals/20090702_1730904010.jpg

Dnipropietrsk (reserve)
Capacity:34 000 people

http://bi.gazeta.pl/im/3/4038/z4038103X.jpg

http://bi.gazeta.pl/im/2/4038/z4038102X.jpg

Lviv
Capacity:- ?

http://bi.gazeta.pl/im/9/4038/z4038099X.jpg

Odessa (reserve)
Capacity: 35 000 people

http://chernomorets.odessa.ua/sport_buildings/new_stadium/img/stadium/new/01_b.jpg

http://chernomorets.odessa.ua/sport_buildings/new_stadium/img/stadium/new/02_b.jpg

This is not a fight. But I just wanted to know your oppinion...

Wich country should host the EURO 2012 Football Championship

Xeni-2

July 8th, 2005, 08:08 PM

My vote goes to Italy :)

eomer

July 9th, 2005, 08:35 AM

My vote goes to Italy :)
Italy allready hosted WC in 1990 and Winter Olympics in 2006...
I think about russia or Turkey.

Genç

July 9th, 2005, 02:13 PM

Turkey :okay:

Giorgio

July 9th, 2005, 03:44 PM

Greece.

We need it.

Mr. T

July 9th, 2005, 03:54 PM

Greece. We have never hosted a major soccer tournament. Plus it will have been 8 years since the Olympics in Athens so it is not like they will be close together.

EarlyBird

July 9th, 2005, 03:58 PM

Personally I think it would have been great if it had been held in the UK. It's not like we aren't capable of two events at once, it would have saved on costs like security and the like and it would have meant all visitors to the country could have been treated to two major international sporting events instead of just one.

Giorgio

July 9th, 2005, 04:11 PM

Greece:

Athens Olympic Stadium - Oaka Spyros Louis (Athens)
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/greece/athens_spiros_louis1.jpg
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/greece/athens_spiros_louis2.jpg

Capacity - 75 000

Karaiskaki Stadium(Athens)
http://www.stadia.gr/karaiskaki/karaiskaki3th.jpg
Capacity - 35 000

Pankritio Stadium (Heraklion
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/greece/heraklion_pankritiko.jpg
Capacity - 33 000

Toumba Stadium(Thessaloniki)
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/greece/thessaloniki_toumba.jpg
Capacity - 29 000

Kaftanzoglio Stadium
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/greece/thessaloniki_kaftanzoglio.jpg
Capacity - 28 000

These stadiums would be expanded. There are also many Stadiums under construction and also approved. Ill be back with more soon.

EarlyBird

July 9th, 2005, 04:13 PM

Those stadia are too small for a European championship. You'd have to build new ones or extend them.

Giorgio

July 9th, 2005, 04:16 PM

Thats y i mentioned theyd be expanded

Kuvvaci

July 9th, 2005, 04:23 PM

Kuvvaci

July 9th, 2005, 04:26 PM

Greece. We have never hosted a major soccer tournament. Plus it will have been 8 years since the Olympics in Athens so it is not like they will be close together.
Come on, you hosted Olympics, we need this more than you...

EarlyBird

July 9th, 2005, 04:31 PM

Thats y i mentioned theyd be expanded
So they're all going to be expanded to 50,000+?

Joshapd

July 9th, 2005, 04:31 PM

Poland-Ukraine, I think that would be pretty cool

Giorgio

July 9th, 2005, 04:43 PM

So they're all going to be expanded to 50,000+?

2-3 of them yes. Plus new stadiums will be built

Kuvvaci

July 9th, 2005, 04:48 PM

Istanbul Ataturk Olympic Stadium 80.000 ppl
http://dunyaturk.com/tr15/Faruk_olimpikstadi.jpg
http://www.ataturkolympicstadium.com/eng/web/bigpic/b26.jpg
http://www.ataturkolympicstadium.com/eng/web/bigpic/b31.jpg

Istanbul Fenerbahçe Şükrü Saracoğlu Stadium 50.000 ppl
http://stadyum.worldturkey.com/sukrusaracoglu/site/fb_gs_kutlama_wall.jpg
http://dunyaturk.com/tr15/emrecan_fb003.jpg

Izmir Olympic Stadium 55.000 ppl
rendering for the renewation project
http://www.parkir.com.tr/stadsuyabatmaz.jpg

Renovation works for Universide 2005
http://dunyaturk.com/tr50/egeerhan_HPIM1633ab.jpg

We need five more stadiums without running tack...

Mr. T

July 9th, 2005, 04:51 PM

Official Greek bid:

OAKA Olympic Stadium (Athens): 75,000
Votanikos Stadium (Athens): 45-50,000
Karaiskaki Stadium (Pireaus): 33,000
Serres Stadium(Serres): 30,000
Kaftanzoglio Stadium(Thessaloniki): 40,000(after renovations)
Ioannina Stadium(Ioannina): 30,000(needs to be built)
Patras Stadium( Patras): 30,000(after renovations)
Volos Stadium(Volos): 30,000(After renovations)
Pankrito Stadium(Crete): 33,000

Giorgio

July 9th, 2005, 04:58 PM

Thanks T

Kuvvaci

July 9th, 2005, 05:07 PM

Kayseri is planning a new station 35.000 ppl
http://www.bolivia.com/futbol/mundial/archivo/2002/sedes/images/seul_estadio.jpg

Kuvvaci

July 9th, 2005, 05:10 PM

Kuvvaci

July 9th, 2005, 05:14 PM

I can't still understand how Austria/Switzerland won it for 2008. At least 4, 5 of those bids are much stornger than Austria/Switzerland...

Mo Rush

July 9th, 2005, 05:22 PM

Kayseri is planning a new station 35.000 ppl
http://www.bolivia.com/futbol/mundial/archivo/2002/sedes/images/seul_estadio.jpg

uh is that stadium the one built for the 2002 soccer world cup?

Giorgio

July 9th, 2005, 05:30 PM

uh is that stadium the one built for the 2002 soccer world cup?

I wouldnt doubt it. Kuvvaci is known to do stupid things :lol: :yes:

Valia

July 9th, 2005, 06:30 PM

Hungary and Croatia for me :)

Genç

July 9th, 2005, 08:20 PM

uh is that stadium the one built for the 2002 soccer world cup?
Yes I think it might be, but that's because Kayseri's new stadium will be based upon the design of this one ;)

Kuvvaci

July 9th, 2005, 08:24 PM

I wouldnt doubt it. Kuvvaci is known to do stupid things :lol: :yes:
:lol: never stupid things file...

First design was different. You can read the details at the New Stadium in Kayseri thread of Turkey forum ;)

(a hint: they are doing the same design)

Kuvvaci

July 9th, 2005, 08:32 PM

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=178809

First design was diffferent, it was with a running track. But later with the candidature of Turkey for EURO 2012. Kayseri changed the design immiditelly, they had to show a project to Turkish Football Federation because the city wanted to be a part of this bid. So, they bought this design :) Yes, it will be the same, but according to the capacity they will make some changes of course...

BTW, Giorgos, this style didn't suit to you, not so kind and in the limits of the respect... This is called as personal attack and insult...

Zaqattaq

July 9th, 2005, 09:32 PM

I would want Polska but Greece and Turkey have the stadiums needed

Monkey

July 9th, 2005, 09:33 PM

Turkey....

Kuvvaci

July 9th, 2005, 09:34 PM

^^ Don't forget Italy and Russia...

DetoX

July 9th, 2005, 10:06 PM

It can`t be Turkey because they have already hosted CL finals (Liverpool <> AC Milan)... so it would different country in my opinion.

I wish it was Poland and Ukraine, but we need to bulid big stadions (I think they have already started...)

Effer

July 9th, 2005, 10:06 PM

Italy

Ricardo Jorge

July 9th, 2005, 10:17 PM

I'm sorry, but I disagree, and this is Not for any matter of prejudice.
Don't take me wrong. I am not christian, nor jewish, nor muslim.

But I don't believe Azerbaijan and Turkey are part of Europe.
I see Continents not as economical clubs, but as cultural and identity units.
In everything, Turkey and Azerbaijan are Asia, like Kazakhstan, Uzbekhstan, Kyrgistan, Turkmenistan, Mongolia, Palestine, Israel, China, Japan, India, etc.

For a World Cup, Yes, I would surely vote for Turkey comparing with the other 7 bids, but not for a European Cup, because I think it's a paradox. Turkey was always an external power in Europe like Portugal was in Africa, and I don't believe Africa would as well like to see a CAF Nations Cup organized in Portugal, nor it would be logical an american CONCACAF Cup taking place in England or Spain, etc.

It is a matter of logic.

Best regards.

eomer

July 9th, 2005, 10:45 PM

I'm sorry, but I disagree, and this is Not for any matter of prejudice.
Don't take me wrong. I am not christian, nor jewish, nor muslim.

But I don't believe Azerbaijan and Turkey are part of Europe.

This is almost the 1 000 000 post to say that Turkey, Azerbaitjan, Cyprus or Kazaksthan are not part of Europe....

But, that's not the problem: thoose countries are member of UEFA. If they are allowed to play with european teams, they can host Euro 2012.

th0m

July 9th, 2005, 11:18 PM

I have to agree with Gallama. But, as eomer pointed out, nothing we can do about it, so lets just leave it to voting for countries. IMO the UK has the strongest bid together with Italy, since they're both obviously hands down the biggest soccer countries that are in the mix. However, giving the UK both the Olympics and the European Cup, regardless of whether they can handle it, is pretty much spitting in the face of all the other contestants. Italy, I guess, would be a safe choice, although facilities would need facelifts, and I'd much rather see it happen in a different country.

I think the countries that have the strongest bid are Turkey and Russia, since they have the population, and some of the wealth, to support expanding or building new stadiums for the event, unlike Portugal for example, as we've seen.

hngcm

July 9th, 2005, 11:44 PM

Italy

heck, they can host it right now with no new stadiums

New York Yankee

July 10th, 2005, 12:39 AM

polan, that's good for the economy.

johnz88

July 10th, 2005, 02:56 AM

I think poland and ukraine would be sick, when was the last time an event like this was held in eastern europe. Plus if they got it, the stadiums wuld be built.
Polish Stadiums for Euro 2012
Krakow - 35 000
Warszawa - 35 000+ and maybe 50 000 (brand new stadiums)
Gdansk - 30 000 (new stadium)
Poznan - 40 000
Chorzow - 50 000
Plus new stadiums in Ukraine like Donetsk - 50 000

Mo Rush

July 10th, 2005, 03:47 AM

THE POLAND/UKRAINE 2012 BID FOR THE EUROPEAN FOOTBALL CHAMPIONSHIPS.

STADIA TO BE USED:capacities given are at present and not with upgrades which are almost likely

THE AMAZING AND ONE OF MY FAVOURITE STADIA
SHAKTHAR DONESTK STADIUM: 50,000

http://www.stadiumguide.com/shakhtarnew1.jpg
[

http://www.stadiumguide.com/shakhtarnew2.jpg

Stadion NSK Olimpiyskiy 83,160

http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/ukraine/kiev_olimpiyskiy.jpg

Stadion Tsentralnyi Chornomorets 30.767

http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/ukraine/odesa_tsentralnyi.jpg

Stadion Metalurh (Krivyi Rih): 30,000

http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/ukraine/krivyi_rih_metalurh.jpg

Stadion Ukrajina 30,000

http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/ukraine/lviv_ukrajina.jpg

Stadion Yuvileiny 30,000

http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/ukraine/sumy_yuvileiny.jpg

Stadion Poznan Lecha 40,000

http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_menu/past_future/pictures/future_stadiums/poznan_lecha.jpg

Stadion Wizly 30,650

http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_menu/past_future/pictures/future_stadiums/krakow_wisly.jpg

Stadion Lechii 30,000

http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_menu/past_future/pictures/future_stadiums/gdansk_lechii.jpg

Stadium Chorzow 43,000

http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/poland/slaskie/chorzow_slaski.jpg

Stadion Slaska 25,000

http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/poland/slaskie/swietochlowice_slaska.jpg

Venezuelacom

July 10th, 2005, 05:50 AM

my vote goes to TURKEY

EllasOle

July 10th, 2005, 08:03 AM

For 2008, Greece and Turkey were close to being the hosts. This time around both feel that they can host one by themselves and I agree with that. I feel that it will be down to these two countries in the end. Italy has hosted enough football tournaments in the past and it's time for someone different. Olympics don't count when it comes to hosting a Euro and either does a CL final. People that are talking about England probably don't realize that they have hosted a Euro as recently as 1996. I don't think that UEFA will want 2 Euros in a row to be co-hosted as it takes away from the clubs that are actually trying to qualify for the tournament as it is hard enough to qualify for it when there are 15 spots. Personally, I think that Greece has a slight edge over Turkey because of the experience and infrastructure that the Olympics brought.

Giorgio

July 10th, 2005, 08:18 AM

I hope so

NavyBlue

July 10th, 2005, 10:36 AM

For 2008, Greece and Turkey were close to being the hosts. This time around both feel that they can host one by themselves and I agree with that.
I disagree, especially with the Greece alone bit.

Most of the greek stadiums have running tracks and I believe there's a UEFA limit of how many can be used (correct me if I'm wrong), so many new one's would have to be constructed. Also most greek teams arn't well supported so can the Greeks afford to build so many new big stadiums that may prove to be white elephants after the tournament?

A joint Turkey/Greece bid would've been very strong but I believe this tournament will go to either Italy or Russia.

Kuvvaci

July 10th, 2005, 04:46 PM

UEFA allows just 2 stadiums with running tacks. Also, for the bid chance at least 3 of the stadiums must already be existing, above 30.000 ppl capacity.. So, both Turkey and Greece have 3 stadiums wich s enough for the UEFA criterians now and 2 of 3 of the both countries are with Running Track,(for Greece, Thessaloniki and OAKA, for Turkey, Izmir and Istanbul Olympic stadiums). Both of them must build 5 more new stadiums only for footbal, without running track, (for Greece, Karaiskaki of Pireas- For Turkey Fenerhahçe of Istanbul)...

But I also regard Russia as a strong candiate, for me stronger than Italy. Italy is candiate, but they don't seem so willing and have no enthusiasm to host the tournement. Maybe because they organized the biggest torunement of the world before. Italian clubs want this tournement to have new stadiums, but people don't seem enthusiastic... Others want to show their selves, they say " hey we are here too", that's all...But only Turkey, Greece and Russia are so willing. one of those 3 wil get it and personal connections will effect the final result (I don't mean fake or trick)

Christos7

July 10th, 2005, 05:39 PM

I disagree, especially with the Greece alone bit.

Most of the greek stadiums have running tracks and I believe there's a UEFA limit of how many can be used (correct me if I'm wrong), so many new one's would have to be constructed. Also most greek teams arn't well supported so can the Greeks afford to build so many new big stadiums that may prove to be white elephants after the tournament?

A joint Turkey/Greece bid would've been very strong but I believe this tournament will go to either Italy or Russia.

Stadiums ready

Olympic Stadium 75,000

http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/2402/oakainside0we.jpg

Karaiskaki Stadium 33,000

http://www.stadia.gr/karaiskaki/karaiskaki1th.jpg

Stadiums existing needing minor upgrades in capacity

* Note, there a rumors of maybe lowering the pitches and having temporary stands added so they can be made into football only and have capacity upgraded

Kaftanzoglio, Thessaloniki 40,000 (from 28,000)

http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/5016/kaftaair3zs.jpg

Pampeloponnesiako, Patra 30,000 (from 23,500)

http://www.stadia.gr/patras/patrasnew6th.jpg

Pancretan, Crete 30,000 (from 27,500)

http://www.stadia.gr/pankritio/pankritio30th.jpg

New Stadiums

Panathinaikos - 45,000-50,000

One of the biggest clubs in Greece, will have no problem with capacity and usage.

Larisa - 32,000

Larisa is THE biggest club out of Thessaloniki/Athens area (only team to win a title outside of them), has a huge following, and regularly sells out. No problem with attendence as usage here.

Ioannina - 30,000

Has a football team and potential for drawing crowds, but their stadium is very poor. Also 10,000 seats are said to be temporary for this stadium, so it will drop to 20,000 after the games.

Serres - 30,000

Very similar to Ioannina.

Another stadium that I would not count out of the mix yet is Toumba in Thessaloniki for PAOK. They need a new stadium and have been dancing around it for years. They are one of the biggest clubs in Greece (biggest in Thessaloniki) and have a good following. This will be a perfect (and maybe only real) opportunity to get a stadium. I think this will make the bid in place of Volos in the end.

At the worst, we will have 4 stadiums with a track. (may be only 1 in the end if rumors are true). We have 2 existing stadiums, 3 which need minor expansions, and a possible 5 to be built.

* Note, Panathinaikos and Larisa will build new stadiums with or without winning the bid.

PS I remembering reading through the rules for hosting a tournament, and I didn't read anything about a limit on tracks. Anybody have a link?

Giorgio

July 10th, 2005, 06:14 PM

i thought there adding a second tier to Karaiskaki

Giorgio

July 10th, 2005, 07:06 PM

after noticing a recent jump in turkeys votes, i did some investigating and found this!

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=233100

once aagin, our turkish friend Kuvvaci has made a thread in the israel forum asking for votes!

Kuvacci started this thread wanting to no opinion......and then he asks for votes!!!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

:llama: :llama: :llama: :llama:

Christos7

July 10th, 2005, 07:54 PM

I never heard about any 2nd tier for Karaiskaki.

As for the poll, who really cares.... these things are always a joke anywy.

johnz88

July 10th, 2005, 09:58 PM

Mo Rush - I really dont think that Poland will be using the Slask stadion with a 25000 cap. If they are, there would be a new stadium built. Plus you forgot the stadium to be built in Warsaw, 35000-40000.

Kuvvaci

July 10th, 2005, 10:12 PM

Kuvvaci

July 10th, 2005, 10:16 PM

I never heard about any 2nd tier for Karaiskaki.

As for the poll, who really cares.... these things are always a joke anywy.
Yes, this is for fun, neither I nor you will decide. But, with the sake of this poll, we ccan see the sttadiums, I am sure nobody would have sent those stadium pictures, it it was not poll, and there was no competition...

BTW, Christos, do you consider Pireas as other city?

PreGy

July 10th, 2005, 11:15 PM

As european, I think Poland and Ukraine need it more.

Greece would be my second option.

pitq

July 10th, 2005, 11:38 PM

Stadium Chorzow 43,000

http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/poland/slaskie/chorzow_slaski.jpg

Stadion Slaska 25,000

http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/poland/slaskie/swietochlowice_slaska.jpg
Actually the first picture presents Satdion Slaski in Chorzow. This one will be expanded to 50.000 and covered with the roof. Second one is :? and has nothing to do with EURO 2012. The rest of stadiums chosen for EURO2012 in Poland will be just built :
Warsaw 35.000-50.000
Krakow 30.000-35.000 (one sector behin the goal is already under construction):
http://members.lycos.co.uk/stadiontsw/lipiec/07/02.jpg

Poznan 40.000one sector is already built only roof is missing
http://budowa.maroonpoint.com/425.jpg

Gdansk 35.000

LuckyLuke

July 11th, 2005, 02:57 AM

Italy would be cool but it hold already the Eurocup 2 times and there will be the next winter olympics so I will vote for Poland-Ukraine.

boots

July 11th, 2005, 03:20 AM

Croatia-Hungary you`ll see

Christos7

July 11th, 2005, 04:38 AM

Yes, this is for fun, neither I nor you will decide. But, with the sake of this poll, we ccan see the sttadiums, I am sure nobody would have sent those stadium pictures, it it was not poll, and there was no competition...

BTW, Christos, do you consider Pireas as other city?

Yes I agree, we get to discuss and see stadiums... (I just learned alot about Poland/Ukraine).

As for Pireas, no I don't really consider it a different city but technically I believe they may be able to get away with it... in the "official" bid, 2 from Athens (OAKA and New PAO) and 1 from Pireas (Karaiskaki) were included. So maybe I am right....

Kawir

July 11th, 2005, 09:55 AM

Croatia-Hungary

DaDvD

July 11th, 2005, 06:16 PM

Italy! Its stadiums are the best of all those:
Olympic Stadium- Rome- 82,000

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y169/DaDvD/EstadioOlmpico-Roma82.jpg

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y169/DaDvD/EstadioOlmpico2.jpg

San Siro- Milan- 85,700

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y169/DaDvD/SanSiro-Milan85.jpg

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y169/DaDvD/SanSiro2.jpg

Delle Alpi- Torino- 71,000 (its capacity will increase by building seats on the running-track)

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y169/DaDvD/Dellealpi-Juventus71.jpg

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y169/DaDvD/Dellealpi-2.jpg

San Nicola Stadium- Bari- 58,300

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y169/DaDvD/SanNicola-AsBari58.jpg

San Paolo Stadium- Napoli- 72,800

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y169/DaDvD/SanPaolo-SSCNapoli72.jpg

www.sercan.de

July 11th, 2005, 07:28 PM

Delle Alpi will be a new Stadium
i think the capacity will be around 40,000

pitq

July 11th, 2005, 10:20 PM

No way EURO2012 must be in Poland and Ukraine

Jerv

July 11th, 2005, 10:58 PM

If it were to be England again (even though we will not bid for some time), the Eight venues I would choose (complete by 2008) would be;

2 from London:
Wembley, 90,000
http://www.wembleystadium.com/images/presspackimages/hi_res_03.jpg

Emirates Stadium, 60,000
http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/Demo_Shado/library/v97339_8.jpg

2 from Manchester:
Old Trafford; 76,000
http://www.manutdzone.com/oldtrafford/photos/newoldtrafford.jpg

City of Manchester Stadium, 49,000
http://www.webbaviation.co.uk/stadiums/aerial/pml67-manchester-city.jpg
http://www.design-for-all.org/images/City_of_Manchester_Stadium_1.jpg

Liverpool:
New Anfield, 61,000
http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/icliverpool/aug2004/7/7/00078399-E95C-1110-BCDA80BFB6FA0000.jpg
http://www.wblsc.co.uk/mediac/400_0/media/New~Anfield~3.jpg

Birmingham:
Birmingham Stadium, 55,000
http://tinypic.com/5d3p77
http://tinypic.com/5d3pd2

Newcastle:
St James Park, 53,000
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/park/yfh45/newcast11.jpg

Sunderland:
Stadium of Light, 49,000
http://www.cerysmatic.clara.net/images/stadium-of-light-sunderland.jpg

Plus to other 80,000+ stadiums in London
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v496/Fatmonkey/London/Olympic-Stadium-from-the-Ro.jpg

http://p.vtourist.com/1422736-Travel_Picture-Twickenham.jpg

Plus other UK stadiums not in England!
Millenium Stadium, Cardiff 75,000
Ibrox, Glasgow 52,000
Hampden, Glasgow 52,000
Celtic Park, Glasgow 60,000
Murrayfield, Edinburgh 64,000

And Stadiums over 40,000 in other parts of England
Villa Park, Birmingham 45,000 (52,000 by 2012)
Elland Road, Leeds 41,000
Hillsborough, Sheffield 40,000
Anfield, Liverpool 45,000 (to be demolished)
Goodison Park, Liverpool 40,000 (to be replaced by 50,000)
Stamford Bridge, London 44,000 (to be increased to 60,000)

So thats around 22 stadiums capable of hosting a world cup match (by fifa's WC standards)! Does any other European country compete with this? (Maybe Germany or Italy)

Gherkin

July 12th, 2005, 12:54 AM

It's more likely that England will bid for the World Cup than Euros, such is the quality of the stadia in England (nothing against any other countries-especially Italy).
England could host a successful tournament in about 2 years time once the new Emirates stadium is built and Old Trafford and Twickenham are expanded. It seems though that no European country will host the tournament for some time.
My guess is 2010 South Africa, 2014 Brazil, 2018 Australia, 2022 somewhere in Europe. Spain/Italy/England have the best chances to host a World Cup in 2022, if a non-european country gets it in 2018.

johnz88

July 12th, 2005, 01:21 AM

Italy's stadiums are old and ugly, plus they have already hosted world cup or euro in the past.
Poland and Ukraine need it more, it would help their economy and change the image of eastern europe to the world.

Kuvvaci

July 12th, 2005, 04:34 PM

But we need it more than anyone else...

pitq

July 12th, 2005, 04:43 PM

My vote goes to:
http://wiadomosci.onet.pl/_i/0507/me2012.jpg

Giorgio

July 12th, 2005, 04:48 PM

But we need it more than anyone else...

Greece Needs it more i personally believe

Christos7

July 12th, 2005, 05:04 PM

I never really thought about it, but here are all the stadiums that have hosted and will host a final in a major tournament since 2000 to 2008:

De Kuip (no track) - Euro 2000

http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/netherlands/rotterdam_de_kuip.jpg

Yokohama International Stadium (track) - WC 2002

http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/asia/japan/kanto/yokohama_international1.jpg

http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/asia/japan/kanto/yokohama_international2.jpg

Da Luz (no track) - Euro 2004

http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/portugal/lisboa/lisbon_luz1.jpg

http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/portugal/lisboa/lisbon_luz2.jpg

Olympia Stadion (track) - WC 2006

http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/germany/berlin/berlin_olympiastadion1.jpg

http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/germany/berlin/berlin_olympiastadion2.jpg

Ernst Happel Stadion (track) - EURO 2008

http://www.stadiumguide.com/ernsthappel2.jpg

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionguides/euro_2008/ernst_happel_stadion/images/100.jpg

Giorgio

July 12th, 2005, 05:07 PM

What do you mean? :?

Christos7

July 12th, 2005, 05:23 PM

We were talking about tracks before, and it's interesting to see how many have hosted a final.

Jerv

July 12th, 2005, 09:36 PM

Also:
WC 1998 - Stade de France (Track Capable)
EC 1996 - Old Wembley (Track)
EC 1992 - Gothenburg (Track)
WC 1990 - Olympic Stadium, Rome (Track)

hngcm

July 12th, 2005, 10:09 PM

It's sad.

A soccer final should be played in a stadium with no track.

christoph

July 12th, 2005, 10:29 PM

I support Hungary and Croatia. Two cool countries where I like to go on vacation. They deserve the Euro. Good luck!

CorliCorso

July 13th, 2005, 02:40 PM

Whilst I'd favour Poland/Ukraine, as it'd be a huge bost for Eastern European football, I don't like joint bids at all. Both of those countries are big enough to go on their own.

Giorgio

July 13th, 2005, 03:30 PM

i agree 100%

Mr. T

July 13th, 2005, 03:49 PM

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionguides/euro_2008/ernst_happel_stadion/images/100.jpg

This stadium will be a big step down from the beutiful La Luz stadium which hosted the Euro 2004 final.
Actually I like all of Portugals stadiums for Euro 2004 more than those for Euro 2008.

johnz88

July 13th, 2005, 06:59 PM

Ya both Poland and Ukraine are big enough to host sepretely but financially, it would tough.

Giorgio

July 13th, 2005, 07:09 PM

i agree. it isnt as good as da luz

Giorgio

July 13th, 2005, 07:13 PM

Greece unveils ambitious plans to host Euro 2012
Mon 11 Jul, 2:59 PM

ATHENS (AFP) - Euro 2004 champions Greece have plans to spend 115 million euros (138 million dollars) on six of eight stadia needed for their candidacy to host the 2012 European football championship, a sports ministry source told AFP.

The Greek bid will include stadia in Athens, Salonika, Patras, Volos and Iraklio used in 2004 Olympics football tournament, plus two new privately-funded facilities in the rural cities of Larissa and Yiannina, the source said Monday.

Of eight proposed stadia, only the 72,000-seat Olympic Stadium in Athens and the 33,000-seat Karaiskaki Stadium in Piraeus, near the capital, are deemed ready to run, the semi-official Athens News Agency (ANA) reported.

The Greek file will be submitted to European football governing body UEFA on July 21, ANA said.

UEFA will announce a shortlist of the three best candidate cities in November 2005, and will decide on the winning bid a year later.

Azerbaijan, Italy, Romania, Russia and Turkey also intend to submit solo bids for the event, while Croatia/Hungary and Poland/Ukraine are working on joint candidacies.

Sports authorities have had trouble filling stadia built or upgraded for the Athens Games, with sources within the Athens 2004 organising committee (ATHOC) admitting that the facilities surpassed Greece's post-Games requirements.

A sports ministry source however shrugged off such concerns on Monday.

"Both the Larissa and Yiannina stadia were approved on the basis of fan potential," he told AFP. "Last season, Larissa FC attracted an average of 15,000 fans per game despite playing in the second division."

Prometheus

July 18th, 2005, 10:20 AM

The bids will be presented to UEFA on July 21.

mikeyraw

July 18th, 2005, 03:11 PM

Is the Ernst Happel Stadion being upgraded at all? It looks very sub par for a final.

Giorgio

July 18th, 2005, 05:03 PM

do you guys think 115 million euros is not enough for greece to spend?

Christos7

July 18th, 2005, 10:15 PM

Well here is the thing..... 2 stadiums are 100% complete and need no work. 4 of the proposed stadiums only need expansion (whether it be adding stands with extra tiers or lowering the pitch and adding stands). The other two new stadiums, will be privately funded up to 20,000 seats, and then the extra will come form the comitee to serve the 30,000 UEFA requirements. So 115 million seems about right, although this is by no means a set figure yet.

Actually, I don't even think the final bid is final, even though officially it "is". If you notice he gives some thing about "substitute" stadiums, by this I think he means, if we can work out deals with both Panathinaikos and PAOK, they will be included, but we cannot garuntee they will be. So IMO I think in the end we will see them and this bid change. All in due time though.....

Kuvvaci

July 19th, 2005, 02:01 AM

Kuvvaci

July 19th, 2005, 02:16 AM

Okay , I will say my opnion, but I hope some friends don't get angry with me. I think joint bids have no chance. UEFA doesn't look warm anymore. Also both joint bids have some handicapes both in experience and geographical reasons (for transportation)... Azerbaijan and Romania have no chance either.

My favourites are Russia, Turkey, Greece and Italy.

But in those four country, Italy is a little bit diferent than others. Because although she is able to organize such an event, Italy doesn't seem caring so much. They decleared old stadiums once more that these stadiums have been used for WC 1990. Also Italy will host Winter Olympics. So, they don't seem so willing actually, because they don't add a new excitment UEFA wants and needs. This is why UEFA won't care of Italy either.

Greece has oganization experience, also has the complexes UEFA wanted for the candiature. Also Greece is the last European Champion and that means it is a new football country. UEFA can look at them warmly.

Turkey has complexes and organization experience too (maybe you missed the situation but, although Turkey didn't host a big torunement yet, organizated and will host many important sport events and tournements so far). Turkey is a football nation too. And last CL final added some new impression to UEFA. Plus, top men of UEFA support Turkey. Don't forget that vice president of UEFA is a Turk ad some Turks are taking place in the UEFA with some duties. This is an advantage of course, but not guarantee.

Russia is my favourite. Because UEFA knows that Russians can do it very well. Russia spends much money for football. And Russian leangue wants to be one of the important major leagues. And don't forget that CSK took the last UEFA Cup and this shows how serious Russia is. So Russia is a good investigation for football rulers.

However, the one who works better will win. It is important to step forward betwen equals. And for me, one of Greece, Turkey and Russia will win. But the one who works harder.... Nothing is guarantee for those 3 now. Time and thier efforts will show everything....

Kuvvaci

July 19th, 2005, 03:11 AM

Why Russia?
Moscow-Luzhniki 80.600 ppl.
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/russland/luzhniki/210.jpg
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/russland/luzhniki/220.jpg

Moscow- Lokomotiv 30.979 ppl
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/russland/lokomotiv/100.jpg

St. Petersburg-S.M. Kirov 72.000 ppl
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/russland/sm_kirov/110.jpg

Why Greece?
Athens-OAKA 76.000 ppl.
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/griechenland/spyros_louis/110.jpg
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/griechenland/spyros_louis/330.jpg

Pireas-Karaiskaki 33.336 ppl.
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/griechenland/neo_stadio_karaiskaki/100.jpg

Heraklion-Pankiritiko 33.240. ppl.
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/greece/heraklion_pankritiko.jpg

Why Turkey?
Istanbul- Olympic stadium 80.579 ppl.
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/tuerkei/atatuerk_olimpiyat/120.jpg
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/tuerkei/atatuerk_olimpiyat/310.jpg

Istanbul-Fenerbahçe, Şükrü Saracoğlu 50.000 ppl
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/tuerkei/fenerbahce_suekrue_saracoglu/110.jpg

Izmir- 63.000 ppl
http://www.universiadeizmir.org/uploads/tr/picture_gallery/ata_stad001.jpg

Giorgio

July 19th, 2005, 05:33 PM

lol i like how you done the Whys like i did in the other thread ;)

Good job at finding the pics.

Giorgio

July 19th, 2005, 05:39 PM

My post from Eastern Europe Forums:

I say Greece Italy and Turkey

Why Greece?:
a) Greece has stadiums from the recent Athens Olympics.
b) Greece has the economic capacity to go through with the largest euro
c) Greece has shown with the Athens Games it is fully capable of hosting a major event breaking many records.
d) Greece is a small cosy country in terms of area. It also has a very reliable transport network and road network. It will be extreamly easy for tourists.
e) Greece has the second highest amount of tourists for a bid city. (15 mill a year)
around 10 million tourists are in greece in the july months!
f) Very good bid. Planning to spend hundreads of millions on the stadiums alone.

Why Italy?:
a) Strong economy and many previous usable stadiums.
b) Most visited country in the bids. Attendance wont be a problem.
c) Good bid in process.
d) Adequate transport network

Why Turkey?:
a) Has a few Stadiums
b) Solid Economy
c) large city = many spectators
d) possibly helped by CL Final

eomer

July 19th, 2005, 06:08 PM

Why Greece?:
a) Greece has stadiums from the recent Athens Olympics.
b) Greece has the economic capacity to go through with the largest euro
c) Greece has shown with the Athens Games it is fully capable of hosting a major event breaking many records.
d) Greece is a small cosy country in terms of area. It also has a very reliable transport network and road network. It will be extreamly easy for tourists.
e) Greece has the second highest amount of tourists for a bid city. (15 mill a year)
around 10 million tourists are in greece in the july months!
f) Very good bid. Planning to spend hundreads of millions on the stadiums alone.

I don't want to hurt you but don't you think that:
- the money spent by Greece (and other EU countries...) for Athens 2004 is enough ?
- Greece should build more motorways and HSR instead of stadiums ?

Christos7

July 19th, 2005, 06:48 PM

We will be spending very little on the stadiums. I believe Portugal spent some 600 million Euros on their stadiums, in comparison we are planning to spend 115 million. Infastructure and Transportation are there (we are/have built motorways) and won't be to much of a problem. All new stadiums will be mainly privately funded by the clubs who will play in them after the tournament.

4 clubs are planning on building new stadiums with or without a Euro, so either way it has no huge effect on public economy. :)

It really is a win - win situation for us if we get it. :) We are ready and the situation (some club teams needing new stadiums) is perfect timing.

Kuvvaci

July 19th, 2005, 08:47 PM

Christos, the same situation is for Turkey too. Both countries need 5 more stadiums, and those stadiums will be used after the torunement. We will see what will happen... The one who works harder will win...

Jerv

July 19th, 2005, 09:02 PM

Czas na Żywiec

July 19th, 2005, 09:39 PM

I hope Poland/Ukraine gets it. I'm probably not going to be alive by the time we finally get the Olympics, so It'd be nice to see something coming to Poland. As much as I like the other candidates like Italy and Greece, they already had their chance to host big gaming events.

Christos7

July 19th, 2005, 10:45 PM

EUR 115m for Greece to build/upgrade 6 stadiums to European Championship standard? In comparison, 2 stadiums in London currently under construction will cost a combined total in excess of EUR 1500m (1.5 billion Euros). Seems like a bargain.

:) I don't know if it is the amount for 4 stadiums or for 6, I know two new ones will be mainly privately funded so I don't know if they are included in this figure, but still what you say is correct.

I remember reading an article though during Euro 2004, Portugal spent 600 million (euro) on 10 new stadiums, 3 of them were 5 star state of the art, while the whole Wembley (1 stadium) is around 800 million (if I am correct). Granted the new Wembley will blow any stadium in this world away, but it's amazing to think about....

Here, I actually found the article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3770309.stm

Tomesh

July 19th, 2005, 11:03 PM

I hope Poland and Ukraine get to host the Euro 2012 but i doubt it.
IMO Turkey has the best bid and stadiums but also i think Hungary/Croatia have a very good chance.

Kuvvaci

July 19th, 2005, 11:17 PM

I hope Poland and Ukraine get to host the Euro 2012 but i doubt it.
IMO Turkey has the best bid and stadiums but also i think Hungary/Croatia have a very good chance.
why do you think, Turkey has the best bid?

Tomesh

July 19th, 2005, 11:37 PM

1)First of all Turkey is a real football crazy nation and you can never go wrong in such a country.
2)Turkish league is getting better every year meaning that there are probably of all country most private investors that are willing to build amazing stadiums.
3)Turkey is a classical summer destination for europeans and Istanbul a huge city
4)Turkey already has 2 amazing stadiums ( of which 1 is for the final (Ataturk Istanbul)? and many are planned with or without Euro(reasons see point no. 2))
5) Large capacity stadiums are planned
6) Transportation is adequate
7) Its in one country ( since the last Euroe is 2 countries) + Uefa internal connections

Falcon83

July 19th, 2005, 11:43 PM

It's cool because every UEFA commissary coming in Italy say we are the favourite to host EURO 2012...but may be they say the same thing in the other countries probably :laugh:

www.sercan.de

July 19th, 2005, 11:46 PM

actually these are planned stadium for the EURO 2012

1. Atatürk Olimpiyat 80.597 (built, aybe expansion to 90.000-100.000)
2. Izmir Atatürk 60.000 (built, maybe a new roof)
3. FB Sükrü Saracoglu 50.484-52.500 (built)
4. New Stadium in Kayeri 40.000
5. New Stadium in Antalya 38.000
6. New Stadium in Ankara 30.000
7. New Stadium in Konya 30.000
8. New Stadium in Bursa 30.000

other projects:
New Stadium of Besiktas 55.000 (proposed)
New Stadium of Galatasaray 52.000-55.000 (proposed)

www.sercan.de

July 19th, 2005, 11:47 PM

It's cool because every UEFA commissary coming in Italy say we are the favourite to host EURO 2012...but may be they say the same thing in the other countries probably :laugh:
AS i heard, Italy and Greece are favourites

Falcon83

July 19th, 2005, 11:55 PM

commissaries are bastard, they go to North Pole and they say "yes North Pole probably will host euro 2012, you have great chances, you are the favourite"...blah blah :blahblah: :blahblah: :blahblah: :blahblah:

Kuvvaci

July 20th, 2005, 12:15 AM

they said the same here too :D

Falcon83

July 20th, 2005, 12:17 AM

I read Italy wants to bring the cities from 8 to 10 or even 12.
In these case there will be other cities and stadiums like Bari, Verona, Udine and Cagliari.

www.sercan.de

July 20th, 2005, 12:39 AM

i thinnk they are only "Reserve"

http://www.figc.it/italiano/comunicati_stampa/comunicati_stampa_2005/pdf_comunicati_stampa/150705_cf.pdf

Falcon83

July 20th, 2005, 12:48 AM

^read better the last sentence!
"cercherà di convincere l'UEFA a portare almeno a 10 (at least at 10)
le sedi dei Campionati...

www.sercan.de

July 20th, 2005, 12:50 AM

i don't understand italian :dunno:

10?mmh..is a little bit to much IMO

Falcon83

July 20th, 2005, 12:52 AM

it's the minimun we want. We would prefer 12 cities.

Kuvvaci

July 20th, 2005, 09:25 AM

Such an event becomes a big mistake imo...

Sonic from Padova

July 20th, 2005, 09:27 AM

ITALY!!!!

eomer

July 20th, 2005, 10:13 AM

it's the minimun we want. We would prefer 12 cities.
12 stadiums too much for 16 teams.
But if there are 24 teams, it's an other story.

Falcon83

July 20th, 2005, 11:26 AM

12 stadiums too much for 16 teams.
But if there are 24 teams, it's an other story.

that's what I mean, 24 teams.

eomer

July 20th, 2005, 11:36 AM

that's what I mean, 24 teams.
Ah OK.
24 teams is better than 16: qualification phase will be more easy to organize.
Less matchs, less dates.

But the first round could be less interesting too:
- If you use 6 groups of 4 teams, you must determinate to 4 "best third".
- If you use 8 groups of 3, it's borry.
- If you use 4 group of 6, it's too long: the winner have to play 8 matchs if only 2 teams are qualified, 9 if 4 teams are qualified in each group.

IMO, the best thing to do is what is allready done for Rugby World Cup: 20 teams in 4 groups of 5.
- There are almost 60 teams in Europe: 1/3 would be qualified.
- In each group, only 2 teams would reach the second round.
- Each team play at least 4 matchs instead of 3.
- The winner have to play 7 matchs.

Falcon83

July 20th, 2005, 11:41 AM

I think the first you wrote.
24 teams,6 groups, 4 teams for each group. But 12 teams only will play the second period I think.

eomer

July 20th, 2005, 11:55 AM

I think the first you wrote.
24 teams,6 groups, 4 teams for each group. But 12 teams only will play the second period I think.
Like "Espana 82" ?
It was not successfull. The second run with 4 groups of 3 was a bit borry because teams defeated during ther first match were almost eliminated and didn't really play the second one.

Making groups for the second round has allway been a bad solution: the best way is to make group during first round only and to have death matchs after.

With 5 group of 5 (25 teams), you can do like this:
- In each group, the first one is qualified for 1/4 final (5 teams)
- The second one reach the 1/8 (5 teams)
- The best 3rd reach the 1/8

So, the quater final are:
A1 - (E2 / Best 3)
B1 - (C2 / D2)
C1 - (A2 / B2)
D1 - E1

Falcon83

July 20th, 2005, 12:00 PM

Like "Espana 82" ?
It was not successfull.

Of course it was! :pepper: :pepper: :pepper:
the best championship ever! :)

eomer

July 20th, 2005, 12:25 PM

Of course it was! :pepper: :pepper: :pepper:
the best championship ever! :)
I forgot you were Italian...of course the result was logical and the best team as won: that's right. But I was speaking about the organization not about the results: I remember some borry 2 round matchs like Poland-USSR, Germany-England, England-Spain, Belgium-Ussr...
France won in the weakest group (D) and the only interesting group was the "C" with Italy, Brasil and Argentina.

Falcon83

July 20th, 2005, 12:33 PM

yes i'm sorry. I was jocking. I think 5 groups with 25 teams could be interesting. Did it work somewhere?
I prefer a "heavy" selection during the tournament.
If there are 5 teams in one group the first 2 teams only should pass.

Zarkon

July 20th, 2005, 12:39 PM

I hope for Italy but I think Turkey will be host euro 2012 :)

hngcm

July 21st, 2005, 06:49 AM

Ah OK.
24 teams is better than 16: qualification phase will be more easy to organize.
Less matchs, less dates.

But the first round could be less interesting too:
- If you use 6 groups of 4 teams, you must determinate to 4 "best third".
- If you use 8 groups of 3, it's borry.
- If you use 4 group of 6, it's too long: the winner have to play 8 matchs if only 2 teams are qualified, 9 if 4 teams are qualified in each group.

IMO, the best thing to do is what is allready done for Rugby World Cup: 20 teams in 4 groups of 5.
- There are almost 60 teams in Europe: 1/3 would be qualified.
- In each group, only 2 teams would reach the second round.
- Each team play at least 4 matchs instead of 3.
- The winner have to play 7 matchs.

Best thing IMO is 6 groups of 4 teams

Giorgio

July 21st, 2005, 11:11 AM

i actually think 115m is a bit stingy by greece. i mean by 2012 its predicted greece will make 60 billion dollars profit on tourism alone! Cant they fork out a bit more cash then just 115m if they were keen on getting the games?

bambam

July 21st, 2005, 06:39 PM

It´s time for East Europe to hoste it... Forza CRO-HUN

http://www.mlsz.hu/attache/euro12_rgb.jpg

www.sercan.de

July 22nd, 2005, 02:45 PM

Five candidates for EURO 2012

UEFA today announced that five bid dossiers to host the final tournament of the 2012 UEFA European Championship have been submitted to European football's governing body before yesterday's closing date.

Bid deadline
The national associations of Croatia/Hungary (joint bid), Greece, Italy, Poland/Ukraine (joint bid) and Turkey have handed their bid dossiers to UEFA by the stipulated deadline. Russia, Romania and Azerbaijan had previously expressed an interest but have not pursued their bids.

Extensive evaluation
"UEFA is delighted with the interest shown in hosting one of the world biggest sporting events and will now make an extensive evaluation of the dossiers," UEFA said.

December 2006 decision
The UEFA Executive Committee will then reduce the number of candidates to three on 7 November 2005. The final decision on the host(s) of UEFA EURO 2012 will be taken by the Executive Committee in December 2006.

http://www.uefa.com/uefa/news/Kind=128/newsId=319205.html

Christos7

July 22nd, 2005, 03:40 PM

Five candidates for EURO 2012

Russia, Romania and Azerbaijan had previously expressed an interest but have not pursued their bids.

Interesting Russia did not pursue the bid...

Giorgio

July 22nd, 2005, 04:51 PM

good, thats one less superpower to worry about

:cheers1:

www.sercan.de

July 22nd, 2005, 11:21 PM

that must be the Antalya Project (38.000-40.600)
http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/577/an4ls.th.jpg (http://img339.imageshack.us/my.php?image=an4ls.jpg)

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/958/antalya406009jw.th.jpg (http://img339.imageshack.us/my.php?image=antalya406009jw.jpg)

Varsben

November 8th, 2005, 04:00 PM

The following bids have passed preliminary screening:

Italy, Hungary/Croatia, Poland/Ukraine.

Greece and Turkey were excluded.

Final decision will be made on 8th December 2006.

Mo Rush

November 8th, 2005, 10:46 PM

Uefa reveals Euro 2012 shortlist
European Championship trophy
Greece won the last European Championship in 2004
Uefa has named a shortlist of three candidates to host the European Championship in 2012.

Italy and joint bids from Croatia/Hungary and Poland/Ukraine made the final list, with the decision on the hosts to be made in December 2006.

European football's governing body rejected bids from Greece and Turkey.

Switzerland/Austria will host the 13th European Championship in 2008, an event which began back in 1960 and has had nine different winners.

Greece were the surprise package of last year's tournament, beating hosts Portugal 1-0 to win their first major football championship.

The first European Championship was won by the USSR, while Germany lead the way with the most number of wins - three.

EllasOle

November 8th, 2005, 11:21 PM

This voting was clearly flawed. I won't complain about Greece not making the final 3 because we seemed to be just a little more serious about this than Russia. The Croatia-Hungary and Poland-Ukraine bids have some HUGE flaws and it is shocking that both made the final 3, but they both still get more votes than Turkey. Italy pulled a fast one and got rid of their biggest threat which was Turkey. Euro 2008 voting was fixed and now Euro 2012 has us leaving that something similar happened. I feel most sorry for Turkey who had the best stadiums in their bid. What bothers me is that people complain about the Greeks and the Athens Olympics because of biased news stories. Euro 2008 had some HUGE organization problems regarding a stadium in Zurich but no one comes and says that the Swiss are lazy and unorganized people.

Mo Rush

November 9th, 2005, 01:10 AM

hard luck greece and istanbul....does it mean they not good enough or just not the right hostsfor 2012?

www.sercan.de

November 9th, 2005, 01:25 AM

hard luck greece and istanbul....does it mean they not good enough or just not the right hostsfor 2012?
Istanbul :D

actually Turkeys bid/presentation was one of the best
its more a political decision

EURO 2012 evaluation report
http://www.uefa.com/newsfiles/362039.pdf

Filipe_Golias

November 9th, 2005, 01:53 AM

Surprising shortlist. I actually expected (like many, perhaps) that the joint bids would be left behind.

I'm sad for Turkey - they were my choice, had great stadia and one of the biggest support levels at the evaluation report. It only missed the shortlist by ONE vote! :cry:

Italy was foreseable... wonder if they will really get it in the end.

Greece coming last with only TWO votes is another surprise. Yet it showed low support levels in the report. Perhaps UEFA didn't want it to guarantee the country another period of intense sport facilities renewal? Dunno :dunno:

Congrats to the joint-bidders! I'm happy in part for Croatia who showed tremendous support and desire to get the hosting rights.

Christos7

November 9th, 2005, 06:06 AM

www.sercan.de

November 9th, 2005, 01:22 PM

Political dimension
"We made a presentation of the technical evaluation to the Executive Committee, who added the political dimension in taking the decision," said UEFA Chief Executive Lars-Christer Olsson. "We reached a decision in the first ballot. A new dossier should be submitted [by the candidates] to UEFA at the end of May 2006, and now all the site visits will take place. There will be a final decision to appoint the hosts for 2012 in December 2006."

EXCO message
Mr Olsson said the choice of the joint Poland/Ukraine bid sent a message from the Executive Committee that the possibility of organising the final round in the eastern part of Europe should be assessed. "They are now catching up with the western part, so it makes it possible to organise this kind of big event," said the CEO.

http://www.uefa.com/uefa/Keytopics/kind=4194304/newsId=364810.html

Kampflamm

November 9th, 2005, 01:29 PM

What kind of stadiums does Italy have? Currently they certainly can't host this kind of event.

www.sercan.de

November 9th, 2005, 01:33 PM

http://img455.imageshack.us/img455/7931/unbenannt9ns.jpg

Kampflamm

November 9th, 2005, 01:33 PM

Varsben

November 9th, 2005, 02:11 PM

I am completely shocked that Turkey did not make the final 3. This is amazing and is pure BS imo.... They had the 2nd best bid after Italy. I am not suprised we didn't make the top 3. Now, no offense to anyone, but if you read the evaluations reports that were published, it's a downright joke the final 3.... Ukraine/Poland lacked alot of infastructure involved.
Greece also lacked a lot of infrastructure involved, when it was awarded the 2004 Olympics.

Was that a "downright joke" too?

Are you applying double standards, my Greek friend?

EllasOle

November 9th, 2005, 07:46 PM

Greece also lacked a lot of infrastructure involved, when it was awarded the 2004 Olympics.

Was that a "downright joke" too?

Are you applying double standards, my Greek friend?

You have to understand that Athens won 2004 because they didn't win it in 1996 when they were supposed to. Atlanta wrigged the voting then and staged a discrace of an Olympics that everyone seems to forget about. I think that it is fair for us Greeks to at least get to host an event that was created a couple of thousand years ago by Greeks at least every 100 years or so. I would like to think that it's fair for both parties. :)

As for the Euro 2012 bidding, we did not say that Greece should be there, our argument is that Turkey's bid was better than both the joint-bids and is not in the final 3.

Rhoy

November 9th, 2005, 08:00 PM

Those stadiums are all horribly outdated..

please, can anybody says to Kamp that "new" it doesn't necessary mean "good".. :sleepy:

these stadiums could appear "outdated" to naive eyes, but they rapresent unique stadium architectures which made school through the years!

Varsben

November 9th, 2005, 09:28 PM

You have to understand that Athens won 2004 because they didn't win it in 1996 when they were supposed to. Atlanta wrigged the voting then and staged a discrace of an Olympics that everyone seems to forget about. I think that it is fair for us Greeks to at least get to host an event that was created a couple of thousand years ago by Greeks at least every 100 years or so. I would like to think that it's fair for both parties. :)

Now read carefully what you have to understand.

First, you disqualified the candidacy of Poland/Ukraine for EURO 2012, citing infrastructural underdevelopment of both countries. But then you pushed aside equivalent reservations against Greece's candidacy for the Olympics, stating historical-political reasons, for staging the Games in Greece.

Now, by quoting Turkey's infrastructural advantage over Poland/Ukraine, you are obviously pushing aside the historical-political considerations associated with EURO 2012, which point to Poland's/Ukraine's clear advantage over Turkey.

So, you are effectively applying double standards, my friend.

Christos7

November 9th, 2005, 09:45 PM

Greece also lacked a lot of infrastructure involved, when it was awarded the 2004 Olympics.

Was that a "downright joke" too?

Are you applying double standards, my Greek friend?

And who says Athens should have been awarded 2004?

And last time I checked, Athens did struggle with construction. Maybe I am talking from experience, my dear Polish friend?

And how can you compare the Olympics to a Euro? There may be at best only a handful of cities in the world which can handle and have the infastructure available for an Olympic Games without needing major infastructure...

So, unless you pump loads of money into infastructure (hotels + stadiums + transport + facilities + hospitals etc) all at once, do it all in 6 years, and have perfect cooperation between two different countries on the matter, of which one is not in the EU, I think there could be potentially some problems. You will need to pull a Greece, and hope for no delays. If you do, more power to you. But neither Poland nor Ukraine have much experience in hosting these kind of events, so we have nothing to go on. And still my opinion stands, Turkey's bid was more qualified and deserved to be in the final 3 much more than Poland/Ukraine (and Croatia/Hungary for that matter). It's nothing against the two countries, it's just my opinion looking at the evaluations and reports.

Varsben

November 10th, 2005, 09:21 AM

But neither Poland nor Ukraine have much experience in hosting these kind of events, so we have nothing to go on. And still my opinion stands, Turkey's bid was more qualified and deserved to be in the final 3 much more than Poland/Ukraine (and Croatia/Hungary for that matter). It's nothing against the two countries, it's just my opinion looking at the evaluations and reports.
It's rather impossible to gain whatever experience in hosting these kind of events, if one has never been awarded such events so far. The political reasons for Poland's and Ukraine's discrimination in this regard in past decades, are obvious for you too, at least - they should be, if you know Europe's history.

Also, current political-historical considerations, evidently give Poland/Ukraine advantage over Turkey, as regards Euro 2012. UEFA made no secret of that.

And don't worry too much about our infrastructure, my friend. Once awarded the games, both countries will cope with necessary investments within 6 years. As Greece or Portugal did, some time ago.

Further discussion is pointless, since you are biased.

I only have one advice for you, my Greek friend:

It's high time you accepted the fact that the Iron Curtain is no longer there. Europe's not divided anymore into "first-" and "second-class" nations, as it used to be for a long time after WW II. Poland and Ukraine are no longer communist satellite states, they are back in Europe's and world's international stage in all domains, sports hosting included. Hence they enjoy all the rights you attribute to the (formerly) "better" Europe.

michal-skoczen

November 10th, 2005, 12:39 PM

Thera are only three bids in game so say which will win. And why:)

Mo Rush

November 10th, 2005, 02:01 PM

Poland Ukraine. Its just time thats all.

Christos7

November 10th, 2005, 04:57 PM

Well, I see you have some kind of raving complex here, you sound just as bad as some of the Greek forumers here with your insecurity.

It's rather impossible to gain whatever experience in hosting these kind of events, if one has never been awarded such events so far.

True, and thats why normally countries start small and work their way up. Hosting CL or UEFA Cup finals, and the like, and get evaluated and learn in the process. To me, it seems it will be hard to have zero experience AND need alot of infastructure, these are not easy things. Especially when like I said, it's two different countries who must cooperate together in this regard. That complicates it more. Whats so wrong with that?

I only have one advice for you, my Greek friend:

It's high time you accepted the fact that the Iron Curtain is no longer there. Europe's not divided anymore into "first-" and "second-class" nations, as it used to be for a long time after WW II. Poland and Ukraine are no longer communist satellite states, they are back in Europe's and world's international stage in all domains, sports hosting included. Hence they enjoy all the rights you attribute to the (formerly) "better" Europe.

Man, come off it. Where was I going on about any of this stuff? Who said Europe is divided? And who said you don't enjoy any of the rights of formely "better" Europe? Last time I checked, I didn't know Turkey was included in that. Because I feel they got jipped and should have been in the final 3, it means I have some kind of biased against eastern and former soviet/communist block nations? :weird: Well, even if Turkey was included, I had already stated I didn't think the Greek bid was good enough to make it, so that means one of the bids from eastern europe would, which I thought was going to be Croatia/Hungary from the evaluation report. So there goes the whole theory right there... I seriously don't get how you can gather all of those things from the simple fact that I thought Turkey had a better bid and I thought was strong enough to make the final 3? (and this is coming from a GREEK, speaking of bias.......)

Mo Rush

November 10th, 2005, 06:17 PM

lets not make this forum about greece they didnt make it move on....good luck poland ukraine..

Crocodine

November 10th, 2005, 08:52 PM

Italy.
Football tradition, resources, stadia, development, hotels...

johnz88

November 10th, 2005, 08:59 PM

They should really give it to Poland/Ukraine because its time that any eastern european countries should host an event like this. Italy has hosted both euros and world cup in the past and I think that Poland/Ukraine can do it if they really want. And Poland by the way does have a really good soccer history. 2 third place finishes in WC, this will be their 7th appearance and they have a few olympic medals to add to that.

DïegôLG

November 10th, 2005, 09:27 PM

Poland- Ukraine sounds interesting.

Christos7

November 10th, 2005, 09:40 PM

We aren't discussing Greece Mo, do you even read the posts??

DvW

November 11th, 2005, 03:54 PM

Stadiums of Italy are pretty ugly, but a BIG capacity, so Italy.

UK's stadiums are the best!

ØlandDK

November 11th, 2005, 07:41 PM

Poland and Ukraine ... but I would really love to see it in scandinavia (N, S and DK)....

DetoX

November 11th, 2005, 11:10 PM

There should be 5 new stadiums in Poland by 2012.

http://www.fanat.com.ua/euro-2012/logo_euro2012.gif

http://www.stadiony.net/projects/lechia_gdansk/lechia_gdansk01_m.jpg

http://www.lech.poznan.pl/zdjecia/stadion/projekt.jpg

Kuvvaci

November 12th, 2005, 01:25 AM

Italy of course... Turkey and Greece are eliminated for guranteeing the Italian victory... Actually other bis should have been rejected from the beginning but, they have been needed for Italian victory... even UEFA Organizations commitee preesident Olsen said at the press conferance that their decision were poltical. When journalist asked more, he sad he doesn't want to say more.
Both Ukraine-Poland and Crotatia Hungary don't even have UEFA criterians.

cphdude

November 12th, 2005, 01:41 AM

Poland and Ukraine ... but I would really love to see it in scandinavia (N, S and DK)....
way to hard to plan, and to much travel for the players....Forget it, untill we can do it ourselfs....My vote goes to Poland- Ukraine....

Schroedinger's Cat

November 12th, 2005, 04:50 PM

The choice is clear - Italy.

Zaqattaq

November 13th, 2005, 06:58 AM

PL AND Ukraine deserve it and they are ready, plus they both have good squads

Giorgio

November 13th, 2005, 10:59 AM

kostya

November 13th, 2005, 11:05 AM

Obviously Italy...BUT, the other countries participating have to have the chance to develop their ifrastructure, stadiums etc. I think the least developed countries must have the games...Hey, it will help for an equally developed Europe this way...think about it...don't get me wrong.

Giorgio

November 13th, 2005, 11:14 AM

This is Football. I couldn't care less about an equally developed Europe at this stage. I want top quality football in a top quality location....In other words,

Italia 2012.

MoreOrLess

November 13th, 2005, 12:31 PM

I'm supprized how little devolpment(2 new 30,000 stadia) of new stadiums their actually is in the Italian bid, espeically as many Italian clubs seem interested in it at the moment. Really how much can the likes of the Olympico be refusbished?

SGoico

November 13th, 2005, 02:13 PM

Italy hosted World Cup finals and Olympic Games. Let´s give Eastern Europe a chance:

I'll go for Poland and Ukraine

tv123

November 15th, 2005, 01:34 AM

i dont support Italy, chance for eastern europe!!!

i think the Poland-Ukarine bid has no chance.The infarstructure(roads,hotels etc) is not as good as in Croatia or Hungary.And the distance is large between the cities in Poland and Ukraine.
The weakness of the Croatia-Hungary bid - hungarian football is crap(but 2times World cup finalist)

Lares

February 22nd, 2006, 10:12 PM

POLAND

Warszawa 55.000
http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/3659/skanwwuj8uf.jpg
http://img334.imageshack.us/img334/7790/skanuj8pe.jpg
http://www.rzeczpospolita.pl/teksty/warszawa_060210/warszawa_a_7-1.F.jpg

Chorzów 50.000
http://img372.imageshack.us/img372/2585/1main18ip.jpg
http://img377.imageshack.us/img377/3702/2main12ps.jpg

Poznań 44.000
http://www.lech.poznan.pl/zdjecia/inne/2006-02-16/3.jpg
http://www.lech.poznan.pl/zdjecia/inne/2006-02-16/7.jpg

Gdańsk 40.000
http://stadiony.net/projects/arena_baltycka/arena_baltycka01.jpg
http://www.gdansk.pl/g2/2006_02/12439_filebig.jpg

Kraków 35.000
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v514/krzycho/stadionwisla33tys-uefa.jpg

UKRAINE

Kyiv Olympic Stadium 82.000
http://tpl.fcdynamo.com/updir/olimpiysky.jpg

Donetsk 50.000
http://shakhtar.com/fc/i/stad.jpg
http://www.mosnews.com/files/5676/stadium1.jpg
http://fotbolti.com/myndir/vellir/donetsk_shakhtyor2.jpg

Dnipropetrovsk 32.000
http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/5278/dnipronew16cs.jpg
http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/2176/dnipronew29qq.jpg

bubomb

February 22nd, 2006, 10:37 PM

I like Chorzów, even in it's present form. There's just something about it!!

Tomesh

February 22nd, 2006, 11:15 PM

^^ yeah as long as one doesnt have to watch football in it :D

I think its gonna be Hungary / Croatia but I am hoping for Poland / Ukraine

messiah

February 22nd, 2006, 11:30 PM

Italy 100%

danJonze87

March 15th, 2006, 01:05 AM

Wales told to bid for Euro finals

Uefa president Lennart Johansson says Wales should enter a joint bid with Scotland and Ireland to host the European Championships.

"I think it's a good idea," said Johansson. "They have the same culture, understand each other and travelling is easy between countries. So why not?"

Johansson also believes Cardiff's Millennium Stadium could soon host one of Uefa's major showpiece cup finals.

"I'm sure it will be considered to host a final," Johansson told BBC Sport.

Last year, the Football Association of Wales decided to ditch a bid to host a Uefa Champions League or Uefa Cup final because of problems meeting strict contractual obligations.

They concluded that the Millennium Stadium's city centre location means there is not have enough surrounding space to accommodate such things as the hospitality tented village.

"That was a big disappointment," FAW secretary general David Collins told BBC Wales Sport.

"But very few stadia in Europe can generate that sort of facility, so maybe Uefa will relax their requirement in the future, particularly for the Uefa Cup final.

"If so, then we would certainly look into that again, especially after this year with the FA Cup, the Community Shield and Championship play-offs moving back to Wembley."

Scotland and Ireland failed in a joint bid to host the 2008 European Championships, which were eventually awarded to Austria and Switzerland.

Joint bids from two countries are becoming ever more popular and successful - there are two such bids in the shortlist for the 2012 European Championships.

A Nordic bid from four countries failed to win the right to host Euro 2008, but Johansson said Uefa would not object in principle to a bid from three nations.

"The Nordic countries tried with four, but that was too much. Next time they will have three," Johansson told BBC Wales Sport.

FAW's David Collins

"We are not going to the same places all the time so there are good opportunities. That gives people hope, and also the opportunity to work together in partnership with other countries."

Wales' biggest hurdle to overcome to stage the 16-team tournament would be the shortage of suitable stadiums.

All bids must have eight stadiums with at least 30,000 seats. The Millennium Stadium is currently the only such venue in Wales.

That could change with the planned new stadium for Cardiff City, but Collins says the FAW would have to look into the possibility of developing Swansea's Liberty Stadium or Wrexham's Racecourse Ground.

Collins also revealed the FAW's preferred option would be to enter a joint bid with just Scotland to host the European Championships.

"We would seriously consider bidding," Collins said. "We seriously considered that with Scotland and the Republic of Ireland; unfortunately they decided to go on their own.

"But we believe it makes more sense to have the tournament within the island of the United Kingdom itself.

"So if we could bring four stadia up to 30,000 seats, together with Scotland we would certainly have eight stadia so we could then make a joint bid."

Hmm, interesting. Living in Wales, it would be great to have a major footballing tournament staged here. Everyone claims rugby is number 1 and 2 in wales, football crowds generally get much higher attendances here. With the closest chance of hosting the Euros being 2016 there would be need for a lot of development. And it could be done in theory

Now i'm not sure about the rules of how many stadiums each city can hold in a Euro, i presume two from Portugal 2004 where Porto and Lisbon had 4 between them

Ireland
- New Lansdowne Road, Dublin 55,000
- Croke Park, Dublin - 80,000 (if available)
- stadium in Cork? 30,000 (min)
- development of Thormond Park in Limerick? 30,000 (min)

Scotland
- Hampden, Glasgow
- Murrayfield, Edinburgh 67,000
- Ibrox or Celtic Park, Glasgow
- Pittodrie Stadium, Aberdeen 22,000 (possible extention or new stadium)
- New stadium in Dundee?

Wales
- Millennium Stadium, Cardiff 74,000 (72,500 for football with possible development the North Stand in next 10 years to boost capacity to 80,000)
- New Cardiff City ground 30,000 (with possible extention to 60,000)
- Liberty Stadium, Swansea 20,000 (with possible extention to the minimum 30,000, even 40,000 depending on Swansea City's league status within 10 years)
- Racecourse Ground, Wrexham 15,000 (with possible extention to the minimum 30,000)
- (possibly another new stadium in Newport maybe)

We've had this talk before, but we've all dismissed it as pie in the sky idea, but when the top dogs at UEFA encourige a bid like this it could be possible. But there is still a few questions to be answered. The stadiums could be there, but 6 of them are in 3 cities. Now i'm not sure what UEFA have in mind when they say 3 countries can share a competition, that means less teams can qualify. And what would Northen Ireland make of this.

But if there was a succesfull bid for 2016 at the earliest. What an opener that would be for the possible World Cup in England in 2018 :D

Lostboy

March 15th, 2006, 01:47 AM

Socrates

March 15th, 2006, 01:57 AM

Firstly it is a committee that decides where finals are to be held, and not Lenart Johannson. But ignoring his prompting and considering the 'nitty gritty' of a joint bid...

Being Scottish I would expect (demand even) that the final of any such tournament hosted jointly should be played at Hampden. I'm pretty sure the SFA would see this as a pre-requisite also.

So would the Welsh consent to the final being held at Hampden, despite the Millenium Stadium having a higher capacity? If not then the idea is a non starter.

Other than that I would be happy to participate in a joint bid with the Welsh FA, and would actually prefer a Scottish and Welsh bid that excluded any Irish involvement.

Its AlL gUUd

March 15th, 2006, 02:07 AM

I hate two nation hosts but 3 host nations is a joke. I think the world cup should never be co-hosted again, but accpet that the Euro's can be co-hosted. IMO Scotland and Wales should go for it but Ireland lost their chance.

International tournaments with more then two hosts is a farce! they need to be more focussed and you can't have 3 teams gaining automatic qualification especially at the euros which has less teams in the tournament than the wc anyway.

danJonze87

March 15th, 2006, 02:25 AM

(Don't get me wrong, your still my Celtic Enemies, whose vile nature and barbarian tendencies I despise, that said I just happen to believe you could host a rather good tournament.)

And enemies we shall remain untill the Anglo-Saxon is driven back to the Mainland, away from our Anciant Britain, when we reclaim back our isle. Mwahahaha *respectfully stares at the opposition*

;)

easysurfer

March 15th, 2006, 05:06 AM

I think a Scotland-Wales bid is the most plausible, you'd have to pull out all the stops to convince that a triumvirate could work, three automatic places is too many.

Ditch Ireland - there is no chance in hell that Croke Park would play host to games invented by the English Oppressor. There'd be a lot of white elephants elsewhere - Landsowne Road will be great but thats the only one that would stay in regular use - they don't have a professional football league.

I think you'd need eight cities, not eight grounds, - no reason you can't have grounds in addition to that in the but you could pull that off.

Scotland/Alba,

Glasgow,
Hampden
Ibrox

Edinburgh,
Murrayfield

Aberdeen,
Pittodrie

Dundee,
Joint Stadium for the two clubs.

Wales/Cymru,

Cardiff,
Millenium
St David's

Swansea,
Liberty (They're flying high in League 1, so could get promotion to the Championship, and increase their capacity, naturally before ten years time)

Wrexham,
Racecourse (Could easily be increased for Euro's and if they get promoted who knows that might be part of the way there already.)

Fourth Welsh City,
Hmmm...

Still within that, your guaranteed a 72500-80000, a 67000, a 55000 and a 52000. Not bad.

(Don't get me wrong, your still my Celtic Enemies, whose vile nature and barbarian tendencies I despise, that said I just happen to believe you could host a rather good tournament.)

Contrary to what you may believe Ireland would probably relish the chance to host alongside Wales and Scotland, and host where ever is suitable. England and it's people are not seen by many as oppressors now in Ireland but probably sense a lack of understanding of the history involved between the two nations. Quite a few of us English people look at our history through rose-tinted glasses but i suppose that's true for many nations. Anyway, back to the topic, i think it would be great if Ireland hosted the EURO tournament along with Scotland and Wales. They all deserve to stage a great international event.

gorgu

March 15th, 2006, 05:58 AM

We deserve it more

gorgu

March 15th, 2006, 06:17 AM

Nah sorry just can’t see it happening, unless the Euro final is held at either Hampden or Murrayfield

We can supply

Hampden 52000
Celtic Park 60000
Ibrox 52000 (being expanded to 56000 this summer)
Murrayfield 67500
Tynecastle 30000
Dundee 30000 (joint stadium, reduced to 20000 after championships)
New Aberdeen Stadium 30000 (reduced to 25000 after the championships)
Easter Road 30000 (reduced to 25000 after the championships)
Rugby Park 20000 (can be temporarily increased to 30000)

Why would we let two other countries joint host when we can almost hold it ourselves, all we want is a junior partner to take maybe one group of the four and host a quarter, a semi and the third place play off)

If it is a case of looking at bigger stadia for the final, fine redevelop the small stand at Murrayfield and increase its capacity to 75000, that should do it!!

The WCML can get from Birmingham to Glasgow in three hours these days, so transport is not an issue!

Lostboy

March 15th, 2006, 12:48 PM

Contrary to what you may believe Ireland would probably relish the chance to host alongside Wales and Scotland, and host where ever is suitable.

You see that statement, isn't really contrary to what I say, because I believe it would possibly not, but I know Wales would jump at it. Thats as maybe, but Ireland's Finest Stadium, will never allow Saxon Games.

And as the Second Wealthiest Country in Europe couldn't guarantee a single stadia for the last bid, to me that shows apathy, and Wales deserve a chance and seem far more enthusiastic. A three country bid will NOT work and is not suitable, and will not get the bid. The Scandinavian Bid was laughed off for much the same reason. I hate to say it but with Scotland's Football Enthusiasm and Heritage, it is the guaranteed first choice of the three, and between two countries Wales is the obvious partner not Ireland.

(And I like the Irish far more than I do the Scots and Welsh. I have Irish Blood in me, but no connection with Wales, other than bordering them, and occassionally patrolling the Marches to make sure Welsh Princes think better of invading.)

England and it's people are not seen by many as oppressors now in Ireland but probably sense a lack of understanding of the history involved between the two nations.

Thats not the point CP, one of the best stadia in Europe, doesn't like (and thats as lightly as I can put it) Anglo-Saxon Games being played there.

Quite a few of us English people look at our history through rose-tinted glasses but i suppose that's true for many nations.

Quite a few countries, play the eternal victim as well.

Anyway, back to the topic, i think it would be great if Ireland hosted the EURO tournament along with Scotland and Wales. They all deserve to stage a great international event.

Everyone else gets it, THREE Nations Hosting will not work.

Accura4Matalan

March 15th, 2006, 02:09 PM

The concept of Wrexham hosting an international event is laughable at best.

Its AlL gUUd

March 15th, 2006, 02:25 PM

We can supply

Hampden 52000
Celtic Park 60000
Ibrox 52000 (being expanded to 56000 this summer)
Murrayfield 67500
Tynecastle 30000
Dundee 30000 (joint stadium, reduced to 20000 after championships)
New Aberdeen Stadium 30000 (reduced to 25000 after the championships)
Easter Road 30000 (reduced to 25000 after the championships)
Rugby Park 20000 (can be temporarily increased to 30000)

You CANT have 3 stadia in on city(GLASGOW). I can't believe why some people still believe that, it was one of the reasons why the previous bid failed!! :bash: I would however support a Scotland Wales Bid. sorry ireland.

BobDaBuilder

March 15th, 2006, 02:46 PM

Anyone see the latest FIFA rankings? USA is ranked 5th in the world.

What a joke.

AdidasGazelle

March 15th, 2006, 02:54 PM

Let's face it, the welsh and scots would jump at any chance of hosting a Euro-Championships because it's the ONLY chance they've got of qualifying for one :rofl:

:cheers:

Its AlL gUUd

March 15th, 2006, 03:47 PM

^^ true but still would like them to host it

CorliCorso

March 15th, 2006, 04:06 PM

Only two cities can have two stadia, so one out of Dublin, Cardiff & Glasgow would have to lose out.

Wrexham? 30,000 capacity stadium? Oh, that's a good one.

30,000 would be too big for the Dundee sides. You could always go back to the Caird Park West idea but I don't remember that being too popular with the locals...

Cork couldn't sustain one unless it's also for gaelic football and even then I can't see an all seater stadium being popular...

Aberdeen? Maybe, but when's the last time AFC averaged over 14,000?

Limerick? They've just done up the Gaelic Grounds so you're not gonna see gaelic football there. Last season Limerick FC averaged 669. Never going to happen.

And then you've got the fact that two of the countries are seperated by another country, and the third is seperated by water...

If you're going to make this a Celtic bid, why not include a stadium in Cornwall, the Isle of Man & Brittany? For goodness' sake...

AdidasGazelle

March 15th, 2006, 04:10 PM

Nooooo......can you imagine all them "hilarious" ginger-wig things, not to mention the kilts :|

:bash:

Jack Rabbit Slim

March 15th, 2006, 05:06 PM

Anyone see the latest FIFA rankings? USA is ranked 5th in the world.

What a joke.
Yer, FIFA rankings are always totally whack! They can never get it right, they base it on past performances where the USA faces crappy teams and wins, and ignore the commen consensus of how good a team is. I mean, everyone, even Americans, knows there are at least 10 teams better then the USA at the moment, and yet FIFA always seem to insist on having them (and Mexico) high up on the list...wtf?? I'm not hating on the USA here or anything, cus they do have a pretty decent team, but to place them in the same leauge as Brazil, England, Germany, France, Argentina, the Netherlands, or even Spain and Italy, is just a joke!

Nooooo......can you imagine all them "hilarious" ginger-wig things, not to mention the kilts :|

:bash:
You really don't like Scotland do ya mate??? :gunz: btw, you forgot the eating of haggis and playing of bagpipes :|

I have to agre with what people have been saying so far, a joint 3 country bid is about as likely to happen as George Bush winning the Nobel prize!

Three automatic qualifications, disputes over who hosts which games and who hosts the final, people having to travel back and forth all over the place, Scotland, Ireland and Wales all blaming eachother if some aspect of it goes wrong, and possibly a shortage of decent venues when you take into account the fact that you are only likely to get one city that can submitt two stadiums and the Irish not allowing football in one or two of their stadiums....all kinds of problems stand in the way.

Maybe a joint Scotland-Wales bid, if either of them can agree on which stadium hosts the final, and if they do some major developments of existing stadiums and maybe build a couple more....

:cheers:

AdidasGazelle

March 15th, 2006, 05:44 PM

Hey Slim, i like the scots as much as the scots like the English.

And you can use all the roll-eyes smilies you want but the FACT is that thousands of jocks DO WEAR them "hilarious" ginger-wig things and kilts to scotland football matches.

:cheers:

Boards

March 15th, 2006, 06:05 PM

Would have been one hell of a party that summer of 2008 in the city if we'd won the bid!

bubomb

March 16th, 2006, 05:04 AM

Wales fine, but not Ireland, they couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery. I remember my friend got a call to arrest an Irish shoplifter. He found him lying seriously injured underneath Tesco's!!

international1

March 16th, 2006, 06:25 AM

good idea methinks..... but 3 births is a bit much.

Durbsboi

March 16th, 2006, 09:37 AM

Anyone see the latest FIFA rankings? USA is ranked 5th in the world.

What a joke.
Yeh where did those beer drinking, pretsel eating bumboys come from all of a sudden? I heard they beat Brazil once.

I know they must have beaten Canada & Hawai like a million times to get them up the rankings.

CharlieP

March 16th, 2006, 12:20 PM

- Millennium Stadium, Cardiff 74,000 (72,500 for football with possible development the North Stand in next 10 years to boost capacity to 80,000)

If you mean rebuilding the two-tier North Stand to the same three-tier design of the rest of the stadium, I can't see how this would add more than an extra 1,000 seats...

CorliCorso

March 16th, 2006, 03:44 PM

If you mean rebuilding the two-tier North Stand to the same three-tier design of the rest of the stadium, I can't see how this would add more than an extra 1,000 seats...
The original design was for 80,000 seats, but the North Stand had to be reduced by 6,000 because of proximity to Cardiff Arms Park, it wouldn've had to be knocked down for the full-sized Mill Stad. They won't be adding any extra seats unless it does get knocked down, and even then I'm not sure if they actually could.

Martuh

March 16th, 2006, 03:56 PM

double, delete please.

Martuh

March 16th, 2006, 03:56 PM

Jack Rabbit Slim

March 16th, 2006, 04:28 PM

Ireland
Croke Park: 82,500
Lansdown Road: 50,000

Wales
Millennium Stadium: 72,500

Scotland
Celtic Park: 60,000
Hampden: 52,000
Ibrox Park: 51,000
Murrayfield: 67,500

Then you have 6 stadiums, need another two. Some options:

SCO - Pittodrie Park: 22,000 seats
NIR - Windsor Park Belfast: 21,000 seats
WAL - Liberty Stadium Swansea: 20,000 seats
WAL - Ninjan Park Stadium Cardiff: 22,000 seats (but two in Cardiff is not an option)
IRL - Austin Stack Park: 25,000 seats
IRL / NIR- some GAA stadium?

But a problem. Hampden, Celtic as well as Ibrox are all Glasgow. Three's just too much. We need to cancel one of them, and Murrayfield's the national rugbystadium so I don't know how the football-rugby relations are over there.

I'd go for Liberty Stadium. It's a little over-the-top to give Scotland 5 stadiums, and 4-3-1 is not really fair, 4-2-2 is more like it. That is 4 for Scotland, 2 for Ireland and 2 for Wales. We could also give Scotland 4, Ireland 2, Wales 1 and Northern Ireland 1.

I know Northern Ireland isn't Ireland officially but hey, they've got some nice stadiums.
Well...the problems with the bid: Croke Park is not a deffinate option, as Ireland won't want people playing an English game etc etc bla bla bla and all that kinda trouble. Then you can only (as you rightly said) have two stadiums from one city, so that would be Celtic Park and Hampden from Glasgow; and also-as you say-Murrayfield is a rugby stadium and it might (I say might) not be feasible or desirable to have football played there.

So that leaves 4 certainties:

Millenium Stadium, Wales, Cardiff - 72,500
Celtic Park, Scotland, Glasgow - 60,000
Hampden, Scotland, Glasgow - 52,000
Lansdown Road, Ireland, Dublin - 36,000

Then, if you accept that a joint three country bid is not possible, and you leave out Ireland, you are left with just those 3 stadiums as deffinates. I know a Euro or World Cup bid always requires the upgrading or construction of football stadiums, but I gotta say, it ain't much of a starting point!

Lostboy

March 16th, 2006, 04:46 PM

You see, joint bids, normally always imply equality between the nations. Look at Switzerland and Austria, hosting an equal number of games of equal importance, whilst the final is held in one, the opening game is in the t'other.

I don't think that the Irish and Welsh would be happy to be subsidiary partners providing a quarter of a tournament each to the Scottish Half. It just wouldn't work, triumvirates will not work out. A partnership can.

Lostboy

March 16th, 2006, 04:52 PM

I know Northern Ireland isn't Ireland officially but hey, they've got some nice stadiums.

:?
I don't know of a single decent Ulster Stadium?

bubomb

March 16th, 2006, 05:12 PM

CorliCorso

March 17th, 2006, 01:35 AM

One thing that gets me is how can three countries that don't even share a border but share a bit of history be the basis of a bid? Most of us in England are from Anglo-Saxon-Roman-Viking-Norman-Celtic blood, does that mean we can include half of Europe in our bid for the 2018 World Cup? Ludicrous.

Socrates

March 17th, 2006, 01:51 AM

Well...the problems with the bid: Croke Park is not a deffinate option, as Ireland won't want people playing an English game etc etc bla bla bla and all that kinda trouble. Then you can only (as you rightly said) have two stadiums from one city, so that would be Celtic Park and Hampden from Glasgow; and also-as you say-Murrayfield is a rugby stadium and it might (I say might) not be feasible or desirable to have football played there.

So that leaves 4 certainties:

Millenium Stadium, Wales, Cardiff - 72,500
Celtic Park, Scotland, Glasgow - 60,000
Hampden, Scotland, Glasgow - 52,000
Lansdown Road, Ireland, Dublin - 36,000

Then, if you accept that a joint three country bid is not possible, and you leave out Ireland, you are left with just those 3 stadiums as deffinates. I know a Euro or World Cup bid always requires the upgrading or construction of football stadiums, but I gotta say, it ain't much of a starting point!

If only 2 stadiums in Glasgow were to be chosen I would bet my life it would be Hampden and Ibrox. They are Uefa certified 5star stadia, Celtic Park is not.
In fact Celtic Park will probably have fallen down by the next Euro Championships anyway.

Its AlL gUUd

March 17th, 2006, 01:56 AM

^^It will make the euros into a laughing stock if there are 3 hosts which are all seperated geographically, at least all the scandinavians share a border.

Jack Rabbit Slim

March 17th, 2006, 03:18 AM

If only 2 stadiums in Glasgow were to be chosen I would bet my life it would be Hampden and Ibrox. They are Uefa certified 5star stadia, Celtic Park is not.
In fact Celtic Park will probably have fallen down by the next Euro Championships anyway.
Whatever. I wasn't taking issue with which stadiums are being used, and if you say they will use Hampden instead of Celtic Park, then I'll go along with that. The point I was just tring to make is that ure only gonna get 2 stadiums from one city, and 1 each from the rest.

From reading other people's comments and from my own knowledge, the possiblilty of a joint 3 country (or even two country) bid between Scotland, Wales and Ireland is actually looking less and less likely the more I think about it.

-Not enough stadiums!
-Not enough real support from a lot of the people in the 3 countries
-All three countries are seperated from eachother
-Issues over who hosts the final/starter etc etc
-All three countries have something of an animosity towards eachother and there will be too many disagreements
-Wales and Ireland would probably end up only having a minimal amount of matches, with Scotland taking the bulk, and they won't want that!
-3 country bids are not looked on favourably by most of UEFA, FIFA or any other organisation

^^ Just some of the problems! Even a Scotland-Wales bid, while being a bit more realistic, would still probably not work.

But what do I know, eh? :D

:cheers:

gorgu

March 17th, 2006, 09:02 AM

MoreOrLess

March 17th, 2006, 11:14 AM

Is 10 stadiums now the minium requirement for the euro's? England used 8 in 96 remember and with that number a joint Scots/Welsh bid looks alot easier to achieve. Ontop of the millenium the welsh could used Cardiff city's new ground plus new stadiums in Swansea and Wrexham(perhaps with some tempt seats going down to 20-25,000 afterwards).

If as discussed in the Hampden thread the relatively small extension was due to lack of funds then I'd guess the SFA would want to use the euro's to extend it further. If you extend the second tier all the way round(or just on the other side) then drop the pitch as much as possible then I'd guess you'd end up with a capacity around 65-75,000.

CharlieP

March 17th, 2006, 11:36 AM

^^It will make the euros into a laughing stock if there are 3 hosts which are all seperated geographically, at least all the scandinavians share a border.

Ireland shares a border with Wales as much as Denmark shares one with Sweden, but I agree with the point you're trying to make :)

Lostboy

March 17th, 2006, 01:17 PM

kingdomca

March 17th, 2006, 02:50 PM

Ireland shares a border with Wales as much as Denmark shares one with Sweden, but I agree with the point you're trying to make :)

What? you can now drive from Wales to Ireland??

Distances around Scandinavia are huge,( especially in Norway and Sweden, where the longest away trip between 2 top clubs is probably longer than going from London to north africa. )
But, ironically, the best supported danish club and the best supported swedish club are actually only seperated by a 15 minute drive across a bridge.

Scandinavia could make a superb bid for a EURO tournament as the geography and spread of venues would fit a 3-4 each bid perfectly but an attempt should only be made if its quite clear that UEFA consider 3 hosts acceptable.

CharlieP

March 17th, 2006, 03:58 PM

What? you can now drive from Wales to Ireland??

Fair point, you can drive from Denmark to Sweden without using a ferry - I was just pointing out that there's no land border. Like I said, I agree with your point that the three countries aren't exactly contiguous - to get from one to the other you either have to fly, take a ferry and/or drive through another country. A Scotland/Ireland/Wales bid would be analogous to, say, a Norway/Denmark/Poland one...

MoreOrLess

March 17th, 2006, 04:09 PM

Then two in Wales MIllenium and Swansea

If we need another then use a temporarily expanded Kilmarnock or build a multi purpose stadium in Inverness that can be used for concerts, exhibitions and as a highland sporting centre of excellence afterwards

You'll need an equal number of stadia (probably 4) in each country, so the matches can be shared out equally as happened in Belguim and the Netherlands, and as will happen in the Alpine Countries in a couple of years.

Scotland will need to supply four.
Wales will need to supply four.

That is why a three country bid is so messed up, could never be agree on, and could never be allowed.

Indeed, in a two country bid the opening ceremony generally goes to the host who doesnt have the final. In a three country bid the best they could do with be to give the first country the final and one QF, the second the opening game one semi and one QF and the third one semi, two QF's and the 3rd place match.

Another problem with a three nation bid would be that almost all the big stadia of all three nations are in their capital/largest city. If the bid took the normal PC route of spreading things out as much as possible then it would have to either ignore some of those big stadia or use a very high number of venues rasing the cost alot. Either way you don't really benefit in terms of the total capacity on offer compaired to a two nation bid.

bubomb

March 17th, 2006, 04:28 PM

Fair point, you can drive from Denmark to Sweden without using a ferry - I was just pointing out that there's no land border. Like I said, I agree with your point that the three countries aren't exactly contiguous - to get from one to the other you either have to fly, take a ferry and/or drive through another country. A Scotland/Ireland/Wales bid would be analogous to, say, a Norway/Denmark/Poland one...

No, it is hard to get from Norway/Denmark to Poland and would take a number of hours. It is very easy to get from Scotland to Wales or to Ireland.

CharlieP

March 17th, 2006, 06:15 PM

I was just picking three countries where you either had to cross the water and/or drive through another country to get from one to another.

I don't mind two adjoining countries splitting the Euro Championships 50/50 as Belgium and The Netherlands did, and Austria and Switzerland are about to, as it means more nations get the chance to host them, but all the proposals for the Celtic countries to host between them just seem messy and contrived. In rugby, the best World Cups have been the ones with a single host (South Africa in 1995 and Australia in 2003) - the ones spread around the Five Nations (1991 and 1999) were too spread out, and sadly politics and horse-trading have meant that France 2007 is really 7/8 France, 1/12 Wales and 1/24 Scotland (though Scotland are apparently looking to hand back their two games)...

bubomb

March 17th, 2006, 06:49 PM

Welly

March 17th, 2006, 07:00 PM

bubomb

March 17th, 2006, 07:35 PM

So if Ireland, Scotland and Wales jointly hosted it (if UEFA want the championships back in the British Isles they should let England host it again simply for practical reasons), but if the three celtic nations jointly hosted it, would that mean all three would automatically qualify?

I know it'd probably be Scotland's and Wales' only realistic way of qualifying but three teams getting an automatic spot is a bit much.

On a side note, how come Ireland, with a million less people in it than Scotland, are far superior at sport to them? Scotland doesn't even have the added disadvantage of losing a high percentage of its talented youngsters to the GAA like the Irish.

So why did Scotland finish 3rd in their 2006 group (despite going through the worst phase in their history) and Ireland, who you claim are so much better, finished 4th in their group?

Ireland are in fact far inferior to Scotland at sport! Scotland are bad at football at the moment, but all countries go through bad phases. In the 70's, England went 12 years without qualifying for a World Cup and 10 years without qualifying for anything!! Scotland has qualified for 8 World Cups and 2 European Championships, far more than Ireland (3 World Cups and 1 European Championship). Outside of football & rugby, Scotland absolutely pumps Ireland from golf to tennis (best tennis player in the UK) to athletics (more medals today for Scotland) to motorsport. I always laugh at these UK mongols who think football and rugby are the only 2 sports in the world. Just look at our hall of fame -

All Rounder -
A man who defied categorisation, playing rugby, cricket, tennis, golf, billiards and much more, all with great success - Leslie M Balfour-Melville

Association Football -
Jim Baxter
Billy Bremner
Kenny Dalglish
Sir Matt Busby
John Greig
Jimmy Johnstone
Denis Law
Jimmy McGrory
Billy McNeill
Bill Shankly
Gordon Smith
Jock Stein

Athletics -
Donald Dinnie
Wyndham Halswelle
Eric Liddell
Liz McColgan
George McNeill
Arthur James Robertson
Ian Stewart
Allan Wells

Baseball -
Bobby Thomson

Boxing -
Ken Buchanan
Benny Lynch
Walter McGowan
Richard McTaggart
Jackie Paterson
Jim Watt

Cricket -
Michael Denness

Cycling -
Robert Millar

Golf -
Tommy Armour
James Braid
Sandy Lyle
"Old" Tom Morris
"Young" Tom Morris
Belle Robertson
Jessie Valentine

Judo -
George Kerr

Horse Racing -
Dr Willie Carson

Motorsport -
Louise Aitken-Walker
Jim Clark
Jimmie Guthrie
Bob McIntyre
Sir Jackie Stewart

Mountaineering and Hillwalking -
Captain Robert Barclay Allardice
Dougal Haston
Dr Hamish McInnes

Rugby Union -
Finlay Calder
W I Douglas Elliot
Gavin Hastings
Andy Irvine
GPS Macpherson
Mark Coxon Morrison
Robert Wilson Shaw

Sailing -
Sir Chay Blyth
Rodney Pattisson

Shinty -
Dr John Cattanach

Shooting -
Alister Alan

Swimming and Diving -
Ian Black
Elenor Gordon
Sir Peter Heatly
Ellen King
Bob McGregor
Nancy Riach
David Wilkie
Jack Wardrop

Table Tennis -
Helen Elliot Hamilton

Tennis -
Winifred Mason Wooldridge

Weightlifting and Wrestling -
Launceston Elliot
John McNiven

Welly

March 17th, 2006, 07:52 PM

Shinty -
Dr John Cattanach

Quality! I love the sound of a good barrel being scraped.

No matter how you want to dress it up, face facts, the two sports that matter (football and rugby) they've been kicking your arses for years now and are still infinitely better in both. Other sports don't really matter. Apart from boxing maybe.

They kick your arses in that too, funnily enough.

I wasn't having a pop, I was merely interested why this was. Having a smaller population and an obsession with GAA and they still totally outclass you in both rugby and football. Any ideas why?

bubomb

March 17th, 2006, 08:16 PM

Quality! I love the sound of a good barrel being scraped.

No matter how you want to dress it up, face facts, the two sports that matter (football and rugby) they've been kicking your arses for years now and are still infinitely better in both. Other sports don't really matter. Apart from boxing maybe.

They kick your arses in that too, funnily enough.

I wasn't having a pop, I was merely interested why this was. Having a smaller population and an obsession with GAA and they still totally outclass you in both rugby and football. Any ideas why?

First of all, you are obviously an ignorant chav if you think football & rugby are the only 2 important sports in the world. Thankfully, I tried hard at school and went to University, and I am educated to know many people love many different sports. A tennis fan is just as passionate about tennis as a football fan is about football.

As for your question, I can't answer it as Scotland have a far better record in football and finished higher in their 2006 group than Ireland did.

I think I should ignore you as you are obviously a bit of a mongol!

Welly

March 17th, 2006, 08:26 PM

As for your question, I can't answer it as Scotland have a far better record in football and finished higher in their 2006 group than Ireland did.

I think I should ignore you as you are obviously a bit of a mongol!

FIFA World Rankings:

Ireland - 29

Scotland - 62

Next.

bubomb

March 17th, 2006, 08:44 PM

FIFA World Rankings:

Ireland - 29

Scotland - 62

Next.

FIFA World Rankings:

Czech Republic - 2nd
USA - 5th

Obviously these rankings are nonsense.

Martuh

March 17th, 2006, 09:00 PM

FIFA World Rankings:

Ireland - 29

Scotland - 62

Next.

UEFA Ranking 2005:

Scotland - 10

Ireland - 38

bubomb

March 17th, 2006, 09:53 PM

It should also be pointed out that although Ireland has a population of 4 million, the number of people eligible to play for Ireland is in fact far more because of Irish emigration over the last 400 years. If you look at the players who have played for Ireland over the last 20 years, most are in reality English. Most were born or raised in England, and were eligible to play for Ireland because their great grandmother grew potatoes in Donegal, or something like that!

Kampflamm

March 17th, 2006, 10:07 PM

You gotta love those intra-British internet fights. :applause:

Welly

March 17th, 2006, 10:16 PM

bubomb

March 17th, 2006, 10:24 PM

There you go! You got there eventually. I asked for a reason for Ireland's superiority and you finally gave it (albeit a fairly predictable one).

Well done!

Ern no, at no point did I say Ireland was superior to Scotland at sports. I can name about 20 international sports where Scotland absolutely pumps Ireland and has done for the last 100 years.

You are boring me now. Please change the record!!

Welly

March 17th, 2006, 10:42 PM

If you look at the players who have played for Ireland over the last 20 years, most are in reality English

Another corker!

Message to the editor: any chance you can sort us out a 'pissing-our-pants' emoticon?

Many thanks.

bubomb

March 17th, 2006, 11:13 PM

Another corker!

Message to the editor: any chance you can sort us out a 'pissing-our-pants' emoticon?

Many thanks.

You really are thick mate. Please go away, as you are out of your depth here -

"In effect, then, what Article 18 offers the Republic of Ireland - a country with a population of only four million people - is direct access to an enormous reserve of diasporic Irish players, most of whom have been drawn from England, the primary destination of twentieth-century Irish migrants (Akenson, 6), and the self-appointed 'home' of football itself."

http://reviews.media-culture.org.au/sections.php?op=printpage&artid=160

Welly

March 17th, 2006, 11:22 PM

If you look at the players who have played for Ireland over the last 20 years, most are in reality English

And still he digs. You'll be needing a new spade soon, numbnuts. Squirm and wriggle and call me as many names as you like, your laughable statement above is fundamentally untrue (like a lot of the stuff you post on here it seems).

The vast majority of Ireland's players over the last 20 years were born in Ireland.

In fact, it's not even close. Your statement is so far wide of the mark it's embarrassing. Don't argue with me with regards footballing matters. I'm a world leading authority with contacts in the upper echelons of the English game and, therefore, quite liable to make you look daft.

As I just have.

bubomb

March 17th, 2006, 11:57 PM

And still he digs. You'll be needing a new spade soon, numbnuts. Squirm and wriggle and call me as many names as you like, your laughable statement above is fundamentally untrue (like a lot of the stuff you post on here it seems).

The vast majority of Ireland's players over the last 20 years were born in Ireland.

In fact, it's not even close. Your statement is so far wide of the mark it's embarrassing. Don't argue with me with regards footballing matters. I'm a world leading authority with contacts in the upper echelons of the English game and, therefore, quite liable to make you look daft.

As I just have.

If you are born in Ireland and move to England at a very young age and are raised in England, then you are English, not Irish. Anyway, a huge number of Irish players were born in England.

In Ireland's 2002 Japan/Korea World Cup squad, 12 out of the 23 players were born and raised in England. I rest my case.

I will now ignore you as you are a twat.

Welly

March 18th, 2006, 12:19 AM

If you look at the players who have played for Ireland over the last 20 years, most are in reality English

Hehehehe let's all laugh at Bamber. Dig dig dig.

Its AlL gUUd

March 18th, 2006, 01:21 AM

If you are born in Ireland and move to England at a very young age and are raised in England, then you are English, not Irish. Anyway, a huge number of Irish players were born in England.

In Ireland's 2002 Japan/Korea World Cup squad, 12 out of the 23 players were born and raised in England. I rest my case.

I will now ignore you as you are a twat.

I agree bubomb as many English sports people who cannot get into the england team tend to join nations from which they have some ancestory(e.g. trinidad & tobago, ireland, wales) so that they can take part in competitions even if they are representing another country.

Jack Rabbit Slim

March 18th, 2006, 03:49 AM

You gotta love those intra-British internet fights. :applause:
They're great arn't they? It's one of the main advantages of being British! There's nothing like a good healthy scrap between neighbours, and the best thing about it is you don't even need to know what's going on, you just have to pick a side and join in.

Here, I'll show you:

Scotland suck at football, Ireland are miles better, football is the only sport worth playing...

^ You get the idea, now someone will have a go at me, and I become initiated into the arguement, as easy as that! Man I love this big nation of ours! :D You should try it Kampfy, it's great fun :)

:cheers:

gorgu

March 18th, 2006, 03:54 AM

You gotta love those intra-British internet fights. :applause:

Keep out of it foreigner you don't understand our petty prejudices and parocialisms he he

Only kidding we hate each other but love each other in the same breath!!!

gorgu

March 18th, 2006, 03:55 AM

We do have the most unique constitutional arrangements in the world makes for good viewing from the outside me thinks!

gorgu

March 18th, 2006, 03:57 AM

no one responding I suppose that is the downside of living upside down in Australia! You are all asleep when i am in here!

gorgu

March 18th, 2006, 04:01 AM

I love talking to myself...............................

bubomb

March 18th, 2006, 08:21 AM

I agree bubomb as many English sports people who cannot get into the england team tend to join nations from which they have some ancestory(e.g. trinidad & tobago, ireland, wales) so that they can take part in competitions even if they are representing another country.

There's even an Englishman playing for Scotland!!

http://www.venneravpompey.com/pompeybilder/nigel%20quashie.jpg

kingdomca

March 18th, 2006, 03:54 PM

On a side note, how come Ireland, with a million less people in it than Scotland, are far superior at sport to them? Scotland doesn't even have the added disadvantage of losing a high percentage of its talented youngsters to the GAA like the Irish.

Because scottish sport is run by by incompetent people.

Look at rugby.
Scottish rugby is simply broke. Losses increase every year because they have to pay off debt from a Murrayfield expansion they couldnt afford.
To fight the loses they have increased ticket prices scaring people away in such large numbers that they didnt need the expansion in the first place.
Farcical stuff. Murrayfield is now only full once a year at best.

scottish rugby spend the rest of their money funding artificial regional pro teams even though no scottish fans cares about these teams at all but prefer to support the national team and the many traditional amateur small town teams.
To make absolutely sure these pro teams do not pick up any support they move them around.
To spend all that cash on talent development instead and then let them play for clubs in other countries, like England where rugby is a profitable business, well its unthinkable.

Scottish football,
well the SFA dont think much of training facilities either, focusing instead on getting their poor national stadium.
I think most teams in the top league still dont have their own training ground or even just access to a decent ground. I think it still happens that a bus full of pro´s drive around scotland looking for a place to train but give up and drive home, and this is top league teams.

They cant afford facilities themselves as an insane rule (even by scottish standards) demanding 10,000 seats for all clubs, forced most clubs into debt funding these structures,many of which have never been used.
You couldnt make it up.
My favorite is probably Raith Rovers, where just about all seats are behind each goal. A very strange place but of course the club knew they only needed the seats to comply with regulations and not to actually use them so built them wherever it fitted best.
All this debt of course rules out that any decent training ground could ever be built or even modest long term talent development could be considered.

2 big rich clubs could make a difference but they are also massively in debt having spent up to 12 million pounds on old norwegian has-beens, money that could have revolutionised scottish training facilities.
Despite constantly going out of europe in the 90´s losing to financially much weaker teams, Rangers believed they only needed to spend more to win.
The fact that they were beaten by teams from small but more balanced leagues where talent could be developed on something as shocking as even fields of grass never seemed to occur to Rangers.
They now have excellent training facilities but it has only increased the gap in standards, already the biggest in Europe.

Historically they could rely on being a passionate football country. Kids would learn the game playing in the streets. It doesnt work that way anymore, though some scottish administrators probably think so. Instead they rely on clubs at all levels but they have little to offer.

But as Bubomb shows, many scots think its just a bad phase in their history, as if it will fix itself.

Welly

March 18th, 2006, 05:08 PM

Because scottish sport is run by by incompetent people.

Look at rugby.
Scottish rugby is simply broke. Losses increase every year because they have to pay off debt from a Murrayfield expansion they couldnt afford.
To fight the loses they have increased ticket prices scaring people away in such large numbers that they didnt need the expansion in the first place.
Farcical stuff. Murrayfield is now only full once a year at best.

scottish rugby spend the rest of their money funding artificial regional pro teams even though no scottish fans cares about these teams at all but prefer to support the national team and the many traditional amateur small town teams.
To make absolutely sure these pro teams do not pick up any support they move them around.
To spend all that cash on talent development instead and then let them play for clubs in other countries, like England where rugby is a profitable business, well its unthinkable.

Scottish football,
well the SFA dont think much of training facilities either, focusing instead on getting their poor national stadium.
I think most teams in the top league still dont have their own training ground or even just access to a decent ground. I think it still happens that a bus full of pro´s drive around scotland looking for a place to train but give up and drive home, and this is top league teams.

They cant afford facilities themselves as an insane rule (even by scottish standards) demanding 10,000 seats for all clubs, forced most clubs into debt funding these structures,many of which have never been used.
You couldnt make it up.
My favorite is probably Raith Rovers, where just about all seats are behind each goal. A very strange place but of course the club knew they only needed the seats to comply with regulations and not to actually use them so built them wherever it fitted best.
All this debt of course rules out that any decent training ground could ever be built or even modest long term talent development could be considered.

2 big rich clubs could make a difference but they are also massively in debt having spent up to 12 million pounds on old norwegian has-beens, money that could have revolutionised scottish training facilities.
Despite constantly going out of europe in the 90´s losing to financially much weaker teams, Rangers believed they only needed to spend more to win.
The fact that they were beaten by teams from small but more balanced leagues where talent could be developed on something as shocking as even fields of grass never seemed to occur to Rangers.
They now have excellent training facilities but it has only increased the gap in standards, already the biggest in Europe.

Historically they could rely on being a passionate football country. Kids would learn the game playing in the streets. It doesnt work that way anymore, though some scottish administrators probably think so. Instead they rely on clubs at all levels but they have little to offer.

But as Bubomb shows, many scots think its just a bad phase in their history, as if it will fix itself.

Superb stuff! Many thanks. A very informative and well thought out response; the kind I was hoping for before it was hi-jacked by the rants of some mad fan of Glasgow's second club.

Thank you.

bubomb

March 18th, 2006, 09:12 PM

Because scottish sport is run by by incompetent people.

Look at rugby.
Scottish rugby is simply broke. Losses increase every year because they have to pay off debt from a Murrayfield expansion they couldnt afford.
To fight the loses they have increased ticket prices scaring people away in such large numbers that they didnt need the expansion in the first place.
Farcical stuff. Murrayfield is now only full once a year at best.

scottish rugby spend the rest of their money funding artificial regional pro teams even though no scottish fans cares about these teams at all but prefer to support the national team and the many traditional amateur small town teams.
To make absolutely sure these pro teams do not pick up any support they move them around.
To spend all that cash on talent development instead and then let them play for clubs in other countries, like England where rugby is a profitable business, well its unthinkable.

Scotland finished 3rd and above England in the 6 nations. Things can't be that bad!

Scottish football, well the SFA dont think much of training facilities either, focusing instead on getting their poor national stadium. I think most teams in the top league still dont have their own training ground or even just access to a decent ground. I think it still happens that a bus full of pro´s drive around scotland looking for a place to train but give up and drive home, and this is top league teams.

You really are thick. The SFA have spent loads on developing football for kids in the last 5 years. Rangers have some of the best training facilities in Europe. Hearts have their own superb training facilities and Hibs and Celtic are building their own. The other teams use private high class sports centres and pitches. No buses or driving about looking for a pitch!! How stupid are you?

They cant afford facilities themselves as an insane rule (even by scottish standards) demanding 10,000 seats for all clubs, forced most clubs into debt funding these structures,many of which have never been used. You couldnt make it up. My favorite is probably Raith Rovers, where just about all seats are behind each goal. A very strange place but of course the club knew they only needed the seats to comply with regulations and not to actually use them so built them wherever it fitted best.
All this debt of course rules out that any decent training ground could ever be built or even modest long term talent development could be considered

The 10000 seat rule was a mistake and has been removed.

2 big rich clubs could make a difference but they are also massively in debt having spent up to 12 million pounds on old norwegian has-beens, money that could have revolutionised scottish training facilities.
Despite constantly going out of europe in the 90´s losing to financially much weaker teams, Rangers believed they only needed to spend more to win.
The fact that they were beaten by teams from small but more balanced leagues where talent could be developed on something as shocking as even fields of grass never seemed to occur to Rangers. They now have excellent training facilities but it has only increased the gap in standards, already the biggest in Europe.

Rangers now have almost no debt, as they have signed a huge deal with JJB. They also have Paul Le Guen as their new manager and £20 million available for transfers. Rangers made mistakes in past, but all clubs do. No other country with 5 million people would have a hope in hell of attracting Paul Le Guen and the players he is about to sign! Celtics debt is £25 million, not that much and far less than most Premiership clubs.

If Scottish football is so bad, then why do we have the 10th best league in Europe, managers like Paul Le Guen and big name international players from around Europe in our league? Look at Danish football, same population size, but it is totally irrelevant compared to Scottish football. Paul Le Guen wouldn't dream of going to a Danish club. Scottish league crowds are almost double Denmarks and our league is the 10th best in Europe, Denmarks is 23rd.

For 5 million people, our league is amazing!! Just look at the link below! 10th best in Europe. No other country with a similar population is above us or even near us -

http://www.xs4all.nl/~kassiesa/bert/uefa/data/method3/crank2006.html

Its AlL gUUd

March 18th, 2006, 11:12 PM

bubomb

March 18th, 2006, 11:27 PM

^^ From a trully neutral point of view i would say scotland's sporting health is just below average, rugby is getting better but football needs a lot more help, however i dont like making comparisons with scotland and other small nations(especially always quoting population, its no ones fault if people are migrating from scotland) because its part of the Uk and has that safety net to fall back on socially and economically. The sfa however are a bunch of novices.

but football and rugby are just 2 sports out of many. No more or less important than any other sport! The USA is poor at rugby and used to be poor at football, but over the last 100 years has produced some of the best sportsmen/women in the world. A tennis fan takes tennis just as seriously as a football fan takes football!

samsonyuen

March 19th, 2006, 01:01 AM

What about a ROI/NI joint bid? They're seperated, aren't they? Or a GB bid?

Its AlL gUUd

March 19th, 2006, 02:52 AM

but football and rugby are just 2 sports out of many. No more or less important than any other sport! The USA is poor at rugby and used to be poor at football, but over the last 100 years has produced some of the best sportsmen/women in the world. A tennis fan takes tennis just as seriously as a football fan takes football!

Dont get me wrong i think sport in scotland is on the way up, i mentioned rugby and football cos they have the highest participation among the population in scotland.

bubomb

March 19th, 2006, 03:03 AM

Dont get me wrong i think sport in scotland is on the way up, i mentioned rugby and football cos they have the highest participation among the population in scotland.

I don't know about that - Haggis Hurling is very popular!!

Its AlL gUUd

March 19th, 2006, 03:06 AM

^^That sounds fun i don't mind trying it, any training centres near london?

bubomb

March 19th, 2006, 03:09 AM

^^That sounds fun i don't mind trying it, any training centres near london?

No, the nearest is Ben Nevis!

Its AlL gUUd

March 19th, 2006, 03:28 AM

^^ The dream, over before it started :cry:

Jack Rabbit Slim

March 19th, 2006, 04:20 AM

What about a ROI/NI joint bid? They're seperated, aren't they? Or a GB bid?
Well a ROI/NI bid wouldn't work cus they don't have nearly enough decent stadiums, and in case you are unaware, ROI and NI don't get on well together: one chose the United Kingdom, the other chose total independance, and they resent eachother becasue of it.

And as for a GB bid-I assume you mean Great Britain here (sorry for clarifying the obvious, I know, but I gotta be sure)-no way would that happen!
Great Britain would include 4 countries: England, Wales, Scotland and NI, and that is just....well its just crazy talk! Then there's the main point to consider that England have already hosted a Euro Cup comfortably on their own back in 96, and could more then easily do so now!
No, England have their sights set on a World Cup bid....when they've finished dealing with the little matter of the Olympics of course ;)

Out of all of the suggested bids, I think a Scotland/Wales bid would be the most preferable, though even that would be a serious struggle!

samsonyuen

March 19th, 2006, 12:56 PM

GB is not four countries, it is three (England, Scotland, and Wales). A lot of people confuse GB with UK (which includes Northern Ireland). I guess the other two nations wouldn't want to see England dominate the bid...

Jack Rabbit Slim

March 19th, 2006, 06:35 PM

^^ Yer, you're right about it being 3 countries, that was my bad, but I still don't think you get the main point here, which is that England wouldn't be part of a joint bid in the first place, cus they could easily host a Euro cup on their own! But yes, Scotland would never agree to being 2nd fiddle to England, if, in some bizzare twist, a joint GB bid was to happen.

:cheers:

mrtocsin

March 20th, 2006, 12:46 AM

This bid will fail as San Marino, Leichtenstein and Andorra will make a joint bid at the same time, and UEFA will find far better facilities there instead.

kingdomca

March 20th, 2006, 05:35 AM

Scotland finished 3rd and above England in the 6 nations. Things can't be that bad!

You really are thick. The SFA have spent loads on developing football for kids in the last 5 years. Rangers have some of the best training facilities in Europe. Hearts have their own superb training facilities and Hibs and Celtic are building their own. The other teams use private high class sports centres and pitches. No buses or driving about looking for a pitch!! How stupid are you?

The 10000 seat rule was a mistake and has been removed.

Rangers now have almost no debt, as they have signed a huge deal with JJB. They also have Paul Le Guen as their new manager and £20 million available for transfers. Rangers made mistakes in past, but all clubs do. No other country with 5 million people would have a hope in hell of attracting Paul Le Guen and the players he is about to sign! Celtics debt is £25 million, not that much and far less than most Premiership clubs.

If Scottish football is so bad, then why do we have the 10th best league in Europe, managers like Paul Le Guen and big name international players from around Europe in our league? Look at Danish football, same population size, but it is totally irrelevant compared to Scottish football. Paul Le Guen wouldn't dream of going to a Danish club. Scottish league crowds are almost double Denmarks and our league is the 10th best in Europe, Denmarks is 23rd.

For 5 million people, our league is amazing!! Just look at the link below! 10th best in Europe. No other country with a similar population is above us or even near us -

http://www.xs4all.nl/~kassiesa/bert/uefa/data/method3/crank2006.html

The issue was scottish underperformance and you always bring up crowds. Crowds are not a strength in itself. quite the opposite. Having strong crowds means lots of cash which should help performances. Strong crowds make scotland´s performances even worse.
When Rangers lost nearly 10 years in a row in the early qualifying rounds in europe to penniless east european teams after having walked through the scottish league your argument is, look at our crowds...
The weakness of the league was the obvious reason. A team with zero experience of pressure lost in europe. their answer. we need more money, more signings, more debt. Insanity.

Dunfermline apparently bussed around for training grounds a few years ago, and claimed most did. that was part of the reasoning behind getting their artificial stadium surface. To have a place to train in winter that wasnt in poor condition. Of course they went for a poor surface that has since been dug up in more waste chaos.

I do know that a few clubs are getting training grounds now and scottish rugby this year have been impressive. Its still early to say how much it matters and its quite clear for anyone to see that scottish rugby is run phenomenally poor. Most football clubs still dont have good facilities and its sad that this isnt helped. Rangers would benefit more from standards rising at other scottish clubs than throwing money at top coaches.

Rangers cant suddenly invent money. they can just bring forward future money by making long term contracts, however I wish them well. I support scottish sport and the old firm is acting much more sanely now.

As for your boring and pointless go at Denmark, I can only say that Denmark has for a very long time developed far better talents despite having far less cash at our disposal. Creating a national team that has walked all over scotland for 30 years. Thats the point
but again you just return to the money/crowd argument with all this "look we can afford to hire this and that"
Its amazing you cant see that this is what makes it embarrassing. You can do that and still do so poorly.

By the way, scottish football is actually seen here as a dangerous example for danish football. The way we dont want our league to develop with too big a gap, where 2 top clubs are rich but cant become great because they have no real competition as the rest are too poor to have a decent profesional structure.

Scottish football is improving though, especially with Hearts challenging,hopefully it continues. Interesting that Rangers had one of their best runs in europe for a very long time in the same year they do so poorly at home. It seems so obvious that they are far better suited to grind out results in europe when they also experience pressure at home.

bubomb

March 20th, 2006, 06:30 AM

When Rangers lost nearly 10 years in a row in the early qualifying rounds in europe to penniless east european teams after having walked through the scottish league

Eh? What are you on about??? Rangers have entered the Champions League 13 times, and have qualified for the group stages 7 times out of 13, including being one goal away from a final in 93. The longest they have went in terms of not making the group stages is TWO years in a row, not TEN years. They have only been knocked out the qualifiers by an Eastern European team once.

Overall Rangers have been disappointing in the Champions League, but once again you are grossly exaggerating!!

Dunfermline apparently bussed around for training grounds a few years ago, and claimed most did. that was part of the reasoning behind getting their artificial stadium surface.

Nope, that's rubbish. Players don't go to training facilities in buses. They have cars. Clubs without their own training complexes train at private member clubs. The artificial surface was paid 100% by UEFA, as it was a study by UEFA and earned Dunfermline £1000 a week and saved them over £100000 in pitch maintenance. It is now gone, but Dunfermline got a nice little earner out of it.

Rangers would benefit more from standards rising at other scottish clubs than throwing money at top coaches.

So instead of signing one of the best managers in Europe, Rangers should donate their money to other clubs???

As for your boring and pointless go at Denmark, I can only say that Denmark has for a very long time developed far better talents despite having far less cash at our disposal. Creating a national team that has walked all over scotland for 30 years. Thats the point.

Although Denmark have done better than Scotland in recent years (not surprising considering Denmarks international team has probably been the best small country in the World for the last 15 years), the difference is not that great. Let's look at the last THIRTY years, which you claim Denmark 'walked all over Scotland'

1974 World Cup, Denmark fail to qualify - Scotland qualify
1978 World Cup, Denmark fail to qualify - Scotland qualify
1982 World Cup, Denmark fail to qualify - Scotland qualify
1986 World Cup, Denmark 2nd round - Scotland qualify
1990 World Cup, Denmark fail to qualify - Scotland qualify
1994 World Cup, Denmark fail to qualify - Scotland fail to qualify
1998 World Cup, Denmark Quarterfinals - Scotland qualify
2002 World Cup, Denmark 2nd round - Scotland fail to qualify
2006 World Cup, Denmark fail to qualify - Scotland fail to qualify

In the last 8 years Denmark have done better in the World Cup, but over your THIRTY claimed years, Scotland clearly have done better.

European Championships -

1976 Denmark fail to qualify - Scotland fail to qualify
1980 Denmark fail to qualify - Scotland fail to qualify
1984 Denmark semis - Scotland fail to qualify
1988 Denmark qualify - Scotland fail to qualify
1992 Denamrk champions - Scotland qualify
1996 Denmark qualify - Scotland qualify
2000 Denmark qualify - Scotland fail to qualify
2004 Denmark quarterfinals - Scotland fail to qualify

Clearly Denmark do much better in this one.

This is your problem kingdomca, you simply don't know your facts and you end up grossly exaggerating. Over the last 30 years, Scotland have got a very good record for a very small country, and Denmark have a superb record in the last 15 years. Only in the last 8 years has it gone pear-shaped for Scotland.

At club level, Scotland shits on Denmark from a very high height, and always has done -

http://www.xs4all.nl/~kassiesa/bert/uefa/data/method3/crank2006.html