Norgethistle Posted May 16, 2012 Report Share Posted May 16, 2012 The winner doesn't automatically qualify anymore, that was done away with afew years ago. Never realised that, thought you always had the chance to defend your title Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chunky jag Posted May 16, 2012 Report Share Posted May 16, 2012 Got a funny feeling it was something to do with France not playing a qualifier for like 4 years due to being both Euro and World Champs? They blamed their shocking tournaments on lack of competitive fixtures. Maybe I'm totally wrong can't remember but I'm sure there was some issue made about that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twinny Posted May 16, 2012 Report Share Posted May 16, 2012 4 teams as the winner also gets a spot, but it would cost hundreds of millions to do the grounds (New stadium in Aberdeen & Dundee, and upgrade of Easter road/Tynecastle if they dont use murryfield), add to that hotels, Aberdeen is a nightmare to get a hotel when the shift change at the rigs is on, Dundee has very few. As much as I would like it to happen I can't see it being viable The bids generally need to include a few new/redeveloped stadiums as this ensures a legacy. France's Euros in 2016 won't just be using stadiums used in 1998, but I believe will use four newly built grounds. I'd happily just use Murrayfield to be honest. The hotel situation could be an issue, but I imagine many fans and teams would base themselves in England. I'm sure that in 8 years Aberdeen could manage a solution to the hotel problem you have identified. Never realised that, thought you always had the chance to defend your title Winners will generally be of a decent enough quality to qualify anyway. And was it not six years France never had to qualify for, hosting the World Cup then winning it and the following Euros. Also, I think smaller nations pressed for the change as it allowed the impression that more chances were up for grabs, even though those teams will almost always qualify. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norgethistle Posted May 16, 2012 Report Share Posted May 16, 2012 The bids generally need to include a few new/redeveloped stadiums as this ensures a legacy. France's Euros in 2016 won't just be using stadiums used in 1998, but I believe will use four newly built grounds. I'd happily just use Murrayfield to be honest. The hotel situation could be an issue, but I imagine many fans and teams would base themselves in England. I'm sure that in 8 years Aberdeen could manage a solution to the hotel problem you have identified. Still involves building a minimum of 2 stadia in Scotland at 30,000 capacity plus 1 in wales and a couple in Ireland, we have roughly 11 million population across these 3 countries, and how often would they get used compared to Frances 64 million population. I don't know how the scottish government or the SFA could justify funding this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KAWB Posted May 16, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 16, 2012 Stadiums need to be at least 30,000 capacity. They don't have any that size. They have 6 over 40,000. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twinny Posted May 16, 2012 Report Share Posted May 16, 2012 They have 6 over 40,000. All the stadiums over 40k here are in the Republic. The highest capacity Northern Irish stadium on the list holds 32k (only 8k seated). Of course with this being wikipedia it may not be accurate... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uberteeb Posted May 16, 2012 Report Share Posted May 16, 2012 Even with expansion to 24 teams giving 3 of them to host nations is a bit much. It sets a rubbish precedent as well. If 3 Eastern European countries who virtually never qualify for tournaments clubbed together and picked up 3 automatic spots you’d imagine it would be countries like Scotland, Ireland and Wales who would be the first to complain (given that with expansion to 24 they should be in with a moderate chance of qualification). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duck snort Posted May 16, 2012 Report Share Posted May 16, 2012 Even with expansion to 24 teams giving 3 of them to host nations is a bit much. It sets a rubbish precedent as well. If 3 Eastern European countries who virtually never qualify for tournaments clubbed together and picked up 3 automatic spots you’d imagine it would be countries like Scotland, Ireland and Wales who would be the first to complain (given that with expansion to 24 they should be in with a moderate chance of qualification). 3 teams would be 12.5% of those competing which is exactly the same as this year, 2 out of 16. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Blutarsky Posted May 16, 2012 Report Share Posted May 16, 2012 (edited) the football aspects aside, what are the chances of a basket case economy like RoI whose government spent vast sums of money on the likes of the aviva stadium getting behind this bid? and glasgow will find out soon enough with the commonwealth games that financial reality is far removed from the marketing puff that over-inflates the gains, especially to 'the economy' of holding such an event. Edited May 16, 2012 by John Blutarsky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaggernaut Posted May 16, 2012 Report Share Posted May 16, 2012 the football aspects aside, what are the chances of a basket case economy like RoI whose government spent vast sums of money on the likes of the aviva stadium getting behind this bid? and glasgow will find out soon enough with the commonwealth games that financial reality is far removed from the marketing puff that over-inflates the gains, especially to 'the economy' of holding such an event. Presumably, that also applies to London and the Olympics. ....Or does that not suit your political stance? Just asking.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twinny Posted May 16, 2012 Report Share Posted May 16, 2012 (edited) the football aspects aside, what are the chances of a basket case economy like RoI whose government spent vast sums of money on the likes of the aviva stadium getting behind this bid? and glasgow will find out soon enough with the commonwealth games that financial reality is far removed from the marketing puff that over-inflates the gains, especially to 'the economy' of holding such an event. It is true that the economic benefit of hosting these competitions does not match expectations (best case scenarios and projected costs not including delays or inflation). But there is a direct beneficial effect of hosting these competitions on population happiness (the term the business world love as a measure of well-being and quality of life), at least for the world cup and European cup anyway. This could perhaps be even more important than economic benefit (though perhaps not in a recession). Edited to add: I love brackets, three sentences and three needlessly parenthesised statements. Edited May 16, 2012 by twinny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Blutarsky Posted May 17, 2012 Report Share Posted May 17, 2012 Presumably, that also applies to London and the Olympics. ....Or does that not suit your political stance? Just asking.... Absolutely applies to London & the Olympics, just that Glasgow came to mind first as it's closer to home. That, and I have a particular issue with the notion of legacy. Whilst Barcelona is oft held up as a model I can't think of any examples since then (20 years ago now) of major events, mainly Olympics or World Cups where a sustainable legacy has been left - just look at Beijing or SA. Mines is a dispassionate view based on economics not politics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.