Rubbish ideas. Having 24 teams just lets the cra*p in, making for a worse tournament, why do you think the world cups are so boring? It should stay as it is. Also the play all over Europe is rubbish.

Mikael Larsson:

It's not Ukraines fault that they are a huge country. But even if we made it work this time it's far from optimal. The best is if the supporters could easily get to the different venues and not keeping them too far away from each other.

Im not saying that im in favour of the idea (still havent made up my mind, hard to imagine how it would work), but i was just adding to the discussion from a different point of view.

I can see how the suggestion has come about though.

OK, lets try recreate Euro 2020. The 24 teams....

Spain, Germany, Netherlands, England, Croatia, Denmark, Portugal, Italy, Russia, France, Greece, Sweden, Ireland, Switzerland, Norway, Czech, Bosnia, Slovenia, Hungary, Turkey, Serbia, Scotland, Belgium, Poland.

The 12 Cities....

Glasgow, Manchester, London, Paris, Madrid, Barcelona, Amsterdam, Munich, Berlin, Rome, Turin, Brussels.

The Groups....

A - Spain, Germany, Croatia, England = They will play their games in Brusells and Amsterdam

B - Denmark, Portugal, Italy, Netherlands = They will play their games in Glasgow and Manchester

C - Russia, France, Greece, Sweden = They will play their games in Madrid and Barcelona

D - Ireland, Switzerland, Norway, Czech = They will play their games in London and Paris

E - Bosnia, Slovenia, Hungary, Turkey = They will play their games in Munich and Berlin

F - Serbia, Scotland, Belgium, Poland = They will play their games in Rome and Turin

Moyesy:

donald p to sign for united:

I am not sure I like increasing the number of teams in the Euros. The chances of an upset winner like a Czechoslovakia, Denmark or Greece would certainly be reduced with more number of rounds. Less groups of death and more dead rubber games are also likely. The Euros generally provide a nice contrast to the World Cup - shorter, more upset winners and more difficult groups. Hopefully, even with this change, that will remain to a certain extent. There was also talk of it going to 32 teams in the future? Now that would be horrible.

It would possibly increase the chances of an upset. I believe the way 24 teams will work is 6 groups of 4, with the top 2 and 4 best 3rd places teams qualifying for the round of 16.

They would have an extra game to get through, but they will have more of a chance of getting to the knockout rounds.

As with the 12/13 Cities to host the Euros. I can see his thinking. I think there is about 1200 miles between Gdansk and Donetsk, which is about the same distance between London and Rome.

If you say the L'viv was in the "middle" of Euro 2012, then the other stadiums are in about a 700 mile radius of L'viv.

If you pick a City in France for example (Paris?) and have a 700m radius from there you would probably get...

Glasgow, Manchester, London, Paris, Madrid, Barcelona, Amsterdam, Munich, Berlin, Rome, Turin, Brussels, Zurich.

Euro 2012 hosted 16 teams between 8 different cities, would an extra 4 or 5 cities for a tournament which includes an extra 8 teams make so big a difference?

It's not Ukraines fault that they are a huge country. But even if we made it work this time it's far from optimal. The best is if the supporters could easily get to the different venues and not keeping them too far away from each other.

donald p to sign for united:

I am not sure I like increasing the number of teams in the Euros. The chances of an upset winner like a Czechoslovakia, Denmark or Greece would certainly be reduced with more number of rounds. Less groups of death and more dead rubber games are also likely. The Euros generally provide a nice contrast to the World Cup - shorter, more upset winners and more difficult groups. Hopefully, even with this change, that will remain to a certain extent. There was also talk of it going to 32 teams in the future? Now that would be horrible.

It would possibly increase the chances of an upset. I believe the way 24 teams will work is 6 groups of 4, with the top 2 and 4 best 3rd places teams qualifying for the round of 16.

They would have an extra game to get through, but they will have more of a chance of getting to the knockout rounds.

As with the 12/13 Cities to host the Euros. I can see his thinking. I think there is about 1200 miles between Gdansk and Donetsk, which is about the same distance between London and Rome.

If you say the L'viv was in the "middle" of Euro 2012, then the other stadiums are in about a 700 mile radius of L'viv.

If you pick a City in France for example (Paris?) and have a 700m radius from there you would probably get...

Glasgow, Manchester, London, Paris, Madrid, Barcelona, Amsterdam, Munich, Berlin, Rome, Turin, Brussels, Zurich.

Euro 2012 hosted 16 teams between 8 different cities, would an extra 4 or 5 cities for a tournament which includes an extra 8 teams make so big a difference?

I think people need to remember that Platini is the figure head for UEFA and not all the idea's put forward are his. I wouldn't be surprised if his Press office came up with it to deflect away from the ***, poor refereeing and many other incidents involving Euro 2012. If that is the case then it has seemed to work.

I agree the punishment for Bendtner was extreme but not sure you can blame that on Platini either, Bendtner knew what he was doing and to come out saying they were a lucky pair of *** is laughable. What is does show to me though is that football seems to be the after thought at these games, players sporting a rival sports betting company to the Uefa official one was obviously going to have some negative response but to hand out a fine that large and a suspension when people are being abused is farcical.

UEFA had to do something major with it as it would have been in breach of its contract with Ladbrokes.

donald p to sign for united:

I am not sure I like increasing the number of teams in the Euros. The chances of an upset winner like a Czechoslovakia, Denmark or Greece would certainly be reduced with more number of rounds. Less groups of death and more dead rubber games are also likely. The Euros generally provide a nice contrast to the World Cup - shorter, more upset winners and more difficult groups. Hopefully, even with this change, that will remain to a certain extent. There was also talk of it going to 32 teams in the future? Now that would be horrible.

I don't see how more teams would decrease the chance for an underdog to win it? When Czechoslovakia won then there were 32 teams involved, just that the qualification and quarter finals worked like the final competition now. And it's not like Czechoslovakia was a small football nation then.

I would agree if there weren't enough good teams to fill out the spots, but there are. 32 teams would be horrible though, we might be the continent with the most good football teams but not even Europe can put 32 good teams out there. =)

I am not sure I like increasing the number of teams in the Euros. The chances of an upset winner like a Czechoslovakia, Denmark or Greece would certainly be reduced with more number of rounds. Less groups of death and more dead rubber games are also likely. The Euros generally provide a nice contrast to the World Cup - shorter, more upset winners and more difficult groups. Hopefully, even with this change, that will remain to a certain extent. There was also talk of it going to 32 teams in the future? Now that would be horrible.

It really isn´t about football anymore. It is about business and generating income. Growing the product.

Mikael Larsson:

makaveli1:

Mikael Larsson:

Most of his ideas are ***... but what about 24 teams in the Euros?
There were 16 this time around and adding 8 then it could have been:

Turkey, Montenegro, Estonia, Bosnia, Norway, Switzerland, Belgium, Serbia
(Romania, Armenia, Israel, Scotland, Hungary).

Not that bad teams... it would be more of a festival with more (good) countries involved.

Begovic, Pjanic, Dzeko.... To get to see the young and talented Switzerland with Inler, Xhaka, Shaqiri... Turkey got third in the world cup 2002.... Ivanovic, Subotic, Tosic, Vidic.... also up and coming Belgium with Witsel, Fellaini, Defour, Hazard, Lukaku, Vermaelen, Kompany, Vertonghen... Norway always get their best games in the finals...
And then there are the hungry contenders (Montenegro, Armenia, Israel) and old football nations (Scotland, Romania, Hungary)...

How would this not improve the games? Worst case scenario we get to see more football and the top team gets to score more goals against lesser opponents. Best case scenario it's a great football festival all over europe with many interesting games :)

How about that?

(and have in mind that I normally hate Platini and Blatter and think that it of course should be played in one country or maxiumum two countries...)

yh mate seeing as you put it that way, that one sounds like a good idea, maybe i made a mistake in implying it was a bad one, its just the way they explained it on Talksport or BBC1 i think made it sound bad. Im starting to feel like i was being a bit harsh on Platini, Ovcourse he shouldn't just be sacked, who am i to say that, hes just coming up with ideas that he thinks are good, i definetly dont agree with having the euros in 12 countrys or whatever though, but hes probably a good guy.

Hey, with all the *** he is spilling he must get something right (or semi-right) once in a while :P The thing is that it's hard and smelly to dig trough all that to find the good (or less bad) ideas =)
The worst part is that Platini + Blatter are so corrupt that they wouldn't do anything good for football unless money and power are showed up their asses...

haha lets hope they dont read this or they may send a hitman out for us!

makaveli1:

Mikael Larsson:

Most of his ideas are ***... but what about 24 teams in the Euros?
There were 16 this time around and adding 8 then it could have been:

Turkey, Montenegro, Estonia, Bosnia, Norway, Switzerland, Belgium, Serbia
(Romania, Armenia, Israel, Scotland, Hungary).

Not that bad teams... it would be more of a festival with more (good) countries involved.

Begovic, Pjanic, Dzeko.... To get to see the young and talented Switzerland with Inler, Xhaka, Shaqiri... Turkey got third in the world cup 2002.... Ivanovic, Subotic, Tosic, Vidic.... also up and coming Belgium with Witsel, Fellaini, Defour, Hazard, Lukaku, Vermaelen, Kompany, Vertonghen... Norway always get their best games in the finals...
And then there are the hungry contenders (Montenegro, Armenia, Israel) and old football nations (Scotland, Romania, Hungary)...

How would this not improve the games? Worst case scenario we get to see more football and the top team gets to score more goals against lesser opponents. Best case scenario it's a great football festival all over europe with many interesting games :)

How about that?

(and have in mind that I normally hate Platini and Blatter and think that it of course should be played in one country or maxiumum two countries...)

yh mate seeing as you put it that way, that one sounds like a good idea, maybe i made a mistake in implying it was a bad one, its just the way they explained it on Talksport or BBC1 i think made it sound bad. Im starting to feel like i was being a bit harsh on Platini, Ovcourse he shouldn't just be sacked, who am i to say that, hes just coming up with ideas that he thinks are good, i definetly dont agree with having the euros in 12 countrys or whatever though, but hes probably a good guy.

Hey, with all the *** he is spilling he must get something right (or semi-right) once in a while :P The thing is that it's hard and smelly to dig trough all that to find the good (or less bad) ideas =)
The worst part is that Platini + Blatter are so corrupt that they wouldn't do anything good for football unless money and power are showed up their asses...

Mikael Larsson:

Most of his ideas are ***... but what about 24 teams in the Euros?
There were 16 this time around and adding 8 then it could have been:

Turkey, Montenegro, Estonia, Bosnia, Norway, Switzerland, Belgium, Serbia
(Romania, Armenia, Israel, Scotland, Hungary).

Not that bad teams... it would be more of a festival with more (good) countries involved.

Begovic, Pjanic, Dzeko.... To get to see the young and talented Switzerland with Inler, Xhaka, Shaqiri... Turkey got third in the world cup 2002.... Ivanovic, Subotic, Tosic, Vidic.... also up and coming Belgium with Witsel, Fellaini, Defour, Hazard, Lukaku, Vermaelen, Kompany, Vertonghen... Norway always get their best games in the finals...
And then there are the hungry contenders (Montenegro, Armenia, Israel) and old football nations (Scotland, Romania, Hungary)...

How would this not improve the games? Worst case scenario we get to see more football and the top team gets to score more goals against lesser opponents. Best case scenario it's a great football festival all over europe with many interesting games :)

How about that?

(and have in mind that I normally hate Platini and Blatter and think that it of course should be played in one country or maxiumum two countries...)

yh mate seeing as you put it that way, that one sounds like a good idea, maybe i made a mistake in implying it was a bad one, its just the way they explained it on Talksport or BBC1 i think made it sound bad. Im starting to feel like i was being a bit harsh on Platini, Ovcourse he shouldn't just be sacked, who am i to say that, hes just coming up with ideas that he thinks are good, i definetly dont agree with having the euros in 12 countrys or whatever though, but hes probably a good guy.

Most of his ideas are ***... but what about 24 teams in the Euros?
There were 16 this time around and adding 8 then it could have been:

Turkey, Montenegro, Estonia, Bosnia, Norway, Switzerland, Belgium, Serbia
(Romania, Armenia, Israel, Scotland, Hungary).

Not that bad teams... it would be more of a festival with more (good) countries involved.

Begovic, Pjanic, Dzeko.... To get to see the young and talented Switzerland with Inler, Xhaka, Shaqiri... Turkey got third in the world cup 2002.... Ivanovic, Subotic, Tosic, Vidic.... also up and coming Belgium with Witsel, Fellaini, Defour, Hazard, Lukaku, Vermaelen, Kompany, Vertonghen... Norway always get their best games in the finals...
And then there are the hungry contenders (Montenegro, Armenia, Israel) and old football nations (Scotland, Romania, Hungary)...

How would this not improve the games? Worst case scenario we get to see more football and the top team gets to score more goals against lesser opponents. Best case scenario it's a great football festival all over europe with many interesting games :)

How about that?

(and have in mind that I normally hate Platini and Blatter and think that it of course should be played in one country or maxiumum two countries...)

yh mate i agree

Read it earlier today.Its a ridiculous idea and it will never work out.So when the fans wanna follow their team they have to fly all over Europ? Yeah like most fans can afford that,lol.Platini says it exists "cheap airlines today so it wont be a problem for fans" but that doesnt help under a Euro.Everybody knows prices for plains,trains,hotels,boats and buses rises very high as soon as a Euro kicks off.

Why fix something that aint broken? I read that this Euro12 broke the former record for how many people have been watching the games at the stadiums.

First of all, Great player, even if i wasn't around to see him first hand, Now i have that out the way, lets get critical!....Not only does he not want goal line technology! Not only Did this maniac refuse to explain or take the blame for Fining Bendtner more money for showing a sponsor than the amount his organisation fined nations for their fans taking part in racial abuse! Not only is he adding 8 more teams into the next Euros! But he is now 'passionate' yes, 'passionate' about having the euros after 2016 onward in 12 or 13 country's at one time!!!!, Mama Mia!!! PLEASE TELL ME IT ISN'T JUST ME!!!!