Quizzes & Puzzles9 mins ago
Answers
1 to 5 of 5
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ichkeria. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Yes great idea.
Rather than put the burden of building and updating stadiums and infrastructure like roads and rail on just one or two countries (like we had in Poland / Ukraine this year) you can spread it across many countries.
After all if two of the grounds were in say London and Paris for example, then it is quick for any team to fly from one to the other.
Quicker than flying from one side of Poland to the other side of Ukraine for a match for example like we had in Euro 2012.
Also major grounds like Wembley already have the facilties like airports nearby, hotels, rail links etc.
I have often thought the Olympics dont have to be in one country either. The horse events and the sailing for example were nowhere near London and could just as easily been in France or Holland or Belgium.
Instead of putting the huge cost on one country spread it across 3 or 4 countires, athletics on one country, swimming in another and so on.
Have one city as the main hosts, like London, but allow France or Holland to stage some events for example.
Rather than put the burden of building and updating stadiums and infrastructure like roads and rail on just one or two countries (like we had in Poland / Ukraine this year) you can spread it across many countries.
After all if two of the grounds were in say London and Paris for example, then it is quick for any team to fly from one to the other.
Quicker than flying from one side of Poland to the other side of Ukraine for a match for example like we had in Euro 2012.
Also major grounds like Wembley already have the facilties like airports nearby, hotels, rail links etc.
I have often thought the Olympics dont have to be in one country either. The horse events and the sailing for example were nowhere near London and could just as easily been in France or Holland or Belgium.
Instead of putting the huge cost on one country spread it across 3 or 4 countires, athletics on one country, swimming in another and so on.
Have one city as the main hosts, like London, but allow France or Holland to stage some events for example.
>>Does it mean that all teams will have to qualify for the finals?
Yes it would seem that you wont have any "hosts" so all team will need to qualify.
The problem we had in Euro 2012 was that Poland and Ukraine both pre qualified as hosts, AND were seeded in a group each, which is a bit much with only 16 teams.
The next Euro will have 24 teams, probably too many I think, particulalry as only about 50 teams enter it in the first place.
Yes it would seem that you wont have any "hosts" so all team will need to qualify.
The problem we had in Euro 2012 was that Poland and Ukraine both pre qualified as hosts, AND were seeded in a group each, which is a bit much with only 16 teams.
The next Euro will have 24 teams, probably too many I think, particulalry as only about 50 teams enter it in the first place.
From 2016 24 teams no less will qualify for the Euro finals, which seems highly ridiculous to me (and likely to make the qualifiers even more of a farce than they currently are). No wonder it would be a strain for most countries to stage!
While all the UEFA countries voted for the first change it seems to me that so one has seen fit to consult the fans about either of these changes, which will make the cost of travel between matches (not to mention the carbon footprint of all those extra flights) considerably greater than ever.
Presumably the idea would be for these games to take place at neutral venues, otherwise you'd simply end up with a second group phase, like the Champions League used to be.
As for what happened in Poland and Ukraine there was a fair amount of travel involved but nothing like what will be involved in 2020 it would seem. There were few occasions were teams actually had to hop about between the two countries and two sets of fans had a base in one city.
I have to say that the idea strikes me as ridiculous. If they can arrange it so that there is one city base per group in the opening stages then it might not be too bad, but somehow I doubt they will do that.
While all the UEFA countries voted for the first change it seems to me that so one has seen fit to consult the fans about either of these changes, which will make the cost of travel between matches (not to mention the carbon footprint of all those extra flights) considerably greater than ever.
Presumably the idea would be for these games to take place at neutral venues, otherwise you'd simply end up with a second group phase, like the Champions League used to be.
As for what happened in Poland and Ukraine there was a fair amount of travel involved but nothing like what will be involved in 2020 it would seem. There were few occasions were teams actually had to hop about between the two countries and two sets of fans had a base in one city.
I have to say that the idea strikes me as ridiculous. If they can arrange it so that there is one city base per group in the opening stages then it might not be too bad, but somehow I doubt they will do that.
Agree
1 to 5 of 5
Latest Posts
ChatterBank12 mins ago
Crosswords21 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles23 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles46 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.