blonde poker forum

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/20631963

Pros/Cons? Sounds like a really good idea to me

Good for Cities like Glasgow, Dublin, Cardiff etc, nightmare for travelling fans.

"Platini, who won the tournament in 1984 with France, floated the idea as a way of avoiding high costs at a time of financial hardship in many countries. "

...and the fans?

Initial reaction is that I hate it.

The whole point is that it is meant to be an event that a whole country (or 2) can get behind and supporters from round europe can travel to, to see a number of games.

I would rather they went to a champions league format than this, with groups then knockouts over 2 legs home/away and a neutral final.

I agree this would be bad if it was a perm move but surely as a one off it might work?

I start off when FIFA or UEFA makes a decision by hating it and then generally don't change my mind.

Fans get done over again.

Horrible idea.

How are the fans getting done over here?

Surely spreading it out gives more people a chance to see a game, rather than just those who can afford to swan off to whichever country it's in.

travel costs, duh

But if the games are spread out it's more likely that there will be at least one game closer to you, meaning it costs less to travel to.

Duh.

Why would travel costs be less if even if they are closer?

3 group games

1 in Spain
1 in Germany
1 in Holland

Rather than 3 in Spain, how is it cheaper? Not to mention the really inflated costs when events like this are on.

Only a few people who support the team get tickets. They will pay a small fortune per ticket. But they make it a holiday for the duration. These poor people will be hopping round Europe like a draughts piece plus paying the stupid ticket prices because the guests are selling them on the black market.

If there is by some miracle an England game at Wembley, it isn't like more Brits will get to watch it.

Having an event in a single place >>> Having an event all over the place.

Rather they just scrapped the whole tournament.

The one just gone pretty much every game was good, except the Eng games ofc.

It bothers me simply because it spoils tradition and doesn't give a country the chance to be the single or dual host and be the theme of the tournament in where the spectators take interest in the hosting country focusing on their features and traditions.

I think all teams should play in similar conditions too; not have teams that will play in cold weather conditions and others in hot. The weather and the travel aspect creates more of a advantage/disadvantage element even if only a little to the teams where in a tournament it should be a level playing ground for everyone with the hosts with the only advantage of being the hosts and playing at home grounds.

I usually regard that as a good reason to change something.

There's a big party in the host country every time and it all builds up slowly and then rapidly to the final, where the atmosphere is electric. Here you get 12 separate parties. Then they all stop. Then a thirteenth party starts up from scratch - possibly Wembley.

It will make little difference. We will be too tired/not bothered and the tourney will be over in a disappointing defeat.

Merry Christmas everybody!

Terrible idea from an inept fool.

The world cup in Brazil will see some teams play in 100 degree heat, and some in 60 degree, given this, and the size of Brazil v The size of Europe, and travel conditions, is there any real difference?

Isn't this happening not because UEFA think it's a good idea but because Platini announced he was voting for Turkey 2 days into the tender process and nobody else submitted?