Euro 2016

(22-06-2016 21:52 )terence Wrote:  fuckin get in!!!!! who would've of thought that. all 4 through!

every one of em should be give man of the match! didn't think they had that in them.

What beating an italian second eleven who didn't give a shit?
Joking aside superb

(22-06-2016 17:44 )setter1000 Wrote:  The optimum format was 16 teams in 4 groups of four. The greedy bastards decided that it would be more lucrative for the host nations if they had more teams in it.

Your comment is untruthful has no basis in reality.

The expansion of the Euros was because Michel Platini thought more countries should have the chance to play in the finals. When the competition first went to 16 finalists there were 34 members of UEFA. Today there are 55 and Platini promised that more would get a chance to qualify.

As for the host nation finding it more lucrative, that is a debatable point of view at best. More groups means more stadiums and France had to build 4 new ones as well as renovate 5 more, costing a total of almost 2 billion Euros. There's no certainty that more teams means more profit.

Well done Irelands

(22-06-2016 17:36 )Charlemagne Wrote:  I'm not happy about the format of the competition.
Seems silly that a 3rd placed team should go through to the next round.

The format has one big plus though, which is that it avoids any teams being eliminated with a match to spare. In this tournament going into the last round of matches all 24 teams still had a chance of going through to the next round, which therefore maintained the interest level for everyone.

Every format has its pros and cons.

(23-06-2016 00:31 )William H Bonney Wrote:  

(22-06-2016 17:44 )setter1000 Wrote:  The optimum format was 16 teams in 4 groups of four. The greedy bastards decided that it would be more lucrative for the host nations if they had more teams in it.

Your comment is untruthful has no basis in reality.

The expansion of the Euros was because Michel Platini thought more countries should have the chance to play in the finals. When the competition first went to 16 finalists there were 34 members of UEFA. Today there are 55 and Platini promised that more would get a chance to qualify.

As for the host nation finding it more lucrative, that is a debatable point of view at best. More groups means more stadiums and France had to build 4 new ones as well as renovate 5 more, costing a total of almost 2 billion Euros. There's no certainty that more teams means more profit.

So you believe everything UEFA and FIFA and politicians tell you do you?

(23-06-2016 00:50 )setter1000 Wrote:  So you believe everything UEFA and FIFA and politicians tell you do you?

Not necessary. The decision was taken following a UEFA Congress at which only 3 UEFA members were opposed to the expansion. As 24 teams in the finals give so many more countries the chance to qualify their enthusiasm for the expansion should be understandable even to you.

Even to me

You are priceless

In 2004 when Portugal were hosts England supporters stayed in a holiday resort which for the weekend they stayed, the holiday resort in question made more revenue than they did the whole summer season the previous year. Now imagine just how much boost to the economy having an extra 8 teams in a competition is going to give the host nation over 3 games.
Now added to how much they boost the economy of the host nation in just the catering and accommodation industry in terms of revenue alone, Imagine what a boost in network rights the organisers and UEFA get in having an extra 8 nations fighting for viewing rights amongst their national tv networks.

If you think they decided to expand the competion from 16 to 24 teams simply because they thought it would be nice for more teams to compete in the finals, without any consideration of the potential increase of profit to the host nation and UEFA, Than you are naive.

(23-06-2016 01:21 )setter1000 Wrote:  If you think they decided to expand the competion from 16 to 24 teams simply because they thought it would be nice for more teams to compete in the finals, without any consideration of the potential increase of profit to the host nation and UEFA, Than you are naive.

You're the one who's naive. You don't grasp what it means to many countries to play in the finals of a major tournament. But more than that you don't grasp what political advantage there was to Platini in expanding the tournament to 24 teams. Platini was planning to stand for the FIFA presidency, so the expansion of the Euros was a big potential vote winner for him. If you don't grasp that you are beyond naive.

(23-06-2016 01:47 )cosmonaut Wrote:  

(23-06-2016 01:21 )setter1000 Wrote:  If you think they decided to expand the competion from 16 to 24 teams simply because they thought it would be nice for more teams to compete in the finals, without any consideration of the potential increase of profit to the host nation and UEFA, Than you are naive.

You're the one who's naive. You don't grasp what it means to many countries to play in the finals of a major tournament. But more than that you don't grasp what political advantage there was to Platini in expanding the tournament to 24 teams. Platini was planning to stand for the FIFA presidency, so the expansion of the Euros was a big potential vote winner for him. If you don't grasp that you are beyond naive.

I understand there are political connotations as well. I was just explaining how the decision to expand the format from 16 teams to 24 teams significantly enhances the revenue of both UEFA and the host nation. If you tbink money does not come into the equation than you too are beyond naive.

(23-06-2016 01:21 )setter1000 Wrote:  If you think they decided to expand the competion from 16 to 24 teams simply because they thought it would be nice for more teams to compete in the finals, without any consideration of the potential increase of profit to the host nation and UEFA, Than you are naive.

You're a big loser if you're pursuing that argument. The Euro 2020 tournament is being held in 13 cities in 13 different European countries, mainly because of the difficulty in finding any one country willing to host it.

Many countries cited the expanded format (from 31 matches featuring 16 nations to 51 featuring 24) and its consequent much greater costs as the decisive factor in them not putting forward a bid for 2020.