Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
24 countries in the next Euro
- Thread starter Eddiespearritt
- Start date
Eddiespearritt
Well-known member
- Thread starter
- #22
it does seem a bit daft, and the cup tournement just gets filled with loads of shit teams to be steam rollered.
but that bit about making the French money, you lost me there
Economic impact - if there are heaps more games and countries participating in France in 2016, they'll benefit from an incredible boost from tourism, hotels, restaurants, etc etc and even with the current 16 countries there would still be a far greater impact than in Poland and the Ukraine. My point is, the French President of UEFA awards the first 24 team tournament to France - who benefit extraordinarily from the inflow of income
GingerBeerMan
3-0
- Dec 29, 2011
- 8,037
And Kompany, and to a less extent Van Buyten.
Was not Was
Loitering with intent
- Jul 31, 2003
- 1,592
That's my problem with a tournament of 24 teams. It's so shit. Don't these people care about symmetry!!!!!?
Buster Gonad
Banned
- Jun 15, 2012
- 4
Toby Alderweireld is an excellent ball-playing centre back too
Lord Bracknell
On fire
Between 1960 and 1976, there were only FOUR teams in the finals.
In 1968, one of the semi-finals was decided on the toss of a coin. Geoff Hurst and Bobby Charlton were joint second-top scorers in the finals. They scored one goal each.
That's the way to do these things.
In 1968, one of the semi-finals was decided on the toss of a coin. Geoff Hurst and Bobby Charlton were joint second-top scorers in the finals. They scored one goal each.
That's the way to do these things.
turienzo's lovechild
New member
- Oct 25, 2003
- 23,964
it's going to absolutely ruin the tournament
the best thing about the euro's is that you get 16 decent teams......even the shittest are still fairly good and it's always a really open tournament with mostly really competitive games
in the world cup for example you always get 4 or 5 pretty shit teams who stand absolutely no chance of doing anything which you don't really get in the euro's
a 24 team tournament is going to contain some pretty mediocre teams in my view...can't say i'm missing any of the teams that didn't qualify
the best thing about the euro's is that you get 16 decent teams......even the shittest are still fairly good and it's always a really open tournament with mostly really competitive games
in the world cup for example you always get 4 or 5 pretty shit teams who stand absolutely no chance of doing anything which you don't really get in the euro's
a 24 team tournament is going to contain some pretty mediocre teams in my view...can't say i'm missing any of the teams that didn't qualify
Djmiles
Barndoor Holroyd
I don't see the problem with having 24 teams. If the shit teams are THAT shit then they'll just get knocked out in the group stages, otherwise they've obviously played well enough to deserve a crack at the QF's and so on.
Lots of people saying "What's the point in having the crap teams in the Euro Finals?". Remember Greece winning Euro 2004? They have done absolutely NAFF all apart from that in previous competitions, but that's the beauty of football.
Bring on the likes of Wales and Scotland. They might just surprise a few people....
But more than likely they'll just keep getting spanked, which is always nice to see.
Lots of people saying "What's the point in having the crap teams in the Euro Finals?". Remember Greece winning Euro 2004? They have done absolutely NAFF all apart from that in previous competitions, but that's the beauty of football.
Bring on the likes of Wales and Scotland. They might just surprise a few people....
But more than likely they'll just keep getting spanked, which is always nice to see.
SK1NT
Well-known member
Remember Denmark... 1992 they didn't even qualify and then replaced czechoslovakia and then WON the tournament...
There are other good teams... Turkey, Serbia, Switzerland all pretty good
Kuipers Supporters Club
Well-known member
Would this mean that 3 teams could go through from one group?
Kuipers Supporters Club
Well-known member
Yugoslavia actually.
24 teams is absurd for a ONE continent tournament. I'd rather UEFA had made a promise to allow minnow countries a chance to co-host the event and have their countries qualify automatically that way. A 16 team tournament featuring a team like Luxembourg, Slovakia, Wales or Albania qualifying as co-hosts is infinitely preferable to a bloated 24 team affair, IMO.
turienzo's lovechild
New member
- Oct 25, 2003
- 23,964
the 1992 tournament was only 8 teams as well wasn't it? it's not like denmark were complete non-hopers, they would've qualified if it was 16 teams
Would any get in the England side though ?
Kuipers Supporters Club
Well-known member
Yes it was , Euro 96 was the first with 16 teams, hence Scotland's qualification.
stripeyshark
All-Time Best Defence
- Dec 20, 2011
- 2,294
Would there be 4 groups of 6?
turienzo's lovechild
New member
- Oct 25, 2003
- 23,964
there has been 24 team world cups and it was 6 groups of 4
Sam Ovett
The New Manager Bus
and Dembele!
Defour and Vertonghen would, for my money, as would Eden Hazard and Vincent Kompany.
stripeyshark
All-Time Best Defence
- Dec 20, 2011
- 2,294
Don't know why the conversation is based around Belgium as they wiill qualify next time anyway. Would any of us really miss Greece, Ukraine or Poland in 2016?