Personally I quite like it with the 16 teams rather than add 8 more which would just be for money reasons but make the competition more drawn out and I feel 24 would be too many sides when ou consider its supposed to be the best of Europe.
The idea probably originated with UEFA noting the cash hit from having no UK team there.
Team 17-24 from the last round is basically most of the UK clubs, the ROI and some decent enough others (think Serbia, Denmark etc).
One of the interesting points about this year's semifinalists is that they are the three biggest European populations - Russia, Turkey, Germany - and another large one (Spain).
I prefer the current 16 team format: keeps the tournament short & sweet & we are not inundated with meaningless games like in the WC.
UEFA are only doing this because they want teams like England there, but England weren't there because they weren't good enough.
They had TWELVE games in which to quailfy, in a group that looked easy on paper & they could not even manage that.
So much for the so-called golden genaration that the media love to harp on about.
Quite why this current team is referred to in such reverential ways, when from my point of view, they are not as qood as the 1990 side, which got to a WC semi-final or the 1966 side, which actually WON the WC is beyond me?
Originally posted by Syntax Error: but England weren't there because they weren't good enough.
So much for the so-called golden genaration that the media love to harp on about.
Quite why this current team is referred to in such reverential ways, when from my point of view, they are not as qood as the 1990 side, which got to a WC semi-final or the 1966 side, which actually WON the WC is beyond me?
Why let trivial facts like not being good enough get in the way of making money? Why shouldn't big countries be allowed to move the goalposts as far as qualification is concerned just so they can make it to a competition where they'd get found out anyway? Why can't they be allowed to make pots and pots more money, even though they're not up to standard? And, before you made such a statement, did you think about the WAGS in all this? If England aren't allowed to qualify, how are they going to party all night? How are they going to be able to go out en-masse in a quiet little town, spoiling the peace and tranquility the residents have always enjoyed and sign autographs for the Heat readers who happen to spot them out shopping in some exclusive boutiques in an upmarket spa town? Sven was the only one with enough forward thinking and innovation to let these intelligent, deep thinking beauties go about their normal business of shopping and hogging the limelight and thinking that they're actually important to the country. Shame on you for forgetting them!
The 'Golden Generation' is surely another media inspired nickname? If I remember rightly, it was first given to the Portugese team of the mid-90's after they did well in the under-21 European Championships but also stayed together for the senior European Championships in 1996 and the World Cup in 1998. At least they looked like doing well though (even though they also flattered to deceive), whereas England's 'Golden Generation' didn't
Originally posted by vbland: Team 17-24 from the last round is basically most of the UK clubs, the ROI and some decent enough others (think Serbia, Denmark etc).
Exactly, I think some of the sides that finished third would have enhanced the competition
Originally posted by Syntax Error: but England weren't there because they weren't good enough.
So much for the so-called golden genaration that the media love to harp on about.
Quite why this current team is referred to in such reverential ways, when from my point of view, they are not as qood as the 1990 side, which got to a WC semi-final or the 1966 side, which actually WON the WC is beyond me?
Why let trivial facts like not being good enough get in the way of making money? Why shouldn't big countries be allowed to move the goalposts as far as qualification is concerned just so they can make it to a competition where they'd get found out anyway? Why can't they be allowed to make pots and pots more money, even though they're not up to standard? And, before you made such a statement, did you think about the WAGS in all this? If England aren't allowed to qualify, how are they going to party all night? How are they going to be able to go out en-masse in a quiet little town, spoiling the peace and tranquility the residents have always enjoyed and sign autographs for the Heat readers who happen to spot them out shopping in some exclusive boutiques in an upmarket spa town? Sven was the only one with enough forward thinking and innovation to let these intelligent, deep thinking beauties go about their normal business of shopping and hogging the limelight and thinking that they're actually important to the country. Shame on you for forgetting them!
The 'Golden Generation' is surely another media inspired nickname? If I remember rightly, it was first given to the Portugese team of the mid-90's after they did well in the under-21 European Championships but also stayed together for the senior European Championships in 1996 and the World Cup in 1998. At least they looked like doing well though (even though they also flattered to deceive), whereas England's 'Golden Generation' didn't
PMSL @ the 1st paragraph & 100% correct at the 2nd paragraph.
Plenty of countries could claim to have wasted a golden generation but England isnt one of them. Well not this generation anyway. All that glitters is not gold.
Though to be fair Russia and Croatia did do well and if Croatia had a fit Eduardo then I think they would have gone further.
i get the distinct feeling from most, and i repeat most, of the posts that this has to do with certain 'big' nations and that this is for them. i think its about UEFA making even more money from more advertising and franchising etc.
i believe it is good that the euro championship will be bigger - for us footy fans = more footy!
not one of us could say the champions league was better before they let more teams in - would you? (unless you are a purest, then you would say that it should only be the champions of league that was in the tournament - which is another idea that monseur platini has banded about the halls of brussels
Originally posted by dyla: i get the distinct feeling from most, and i repeat most, of the posts that this has to do with certain 'big' nations and that this is for them. i think its about UEFA making even more money from more advertising and franchising etc.
i believe it is good that the euro championship will be bigger - for us footy fans = more footy!
not one of us could say the champions league was better before they let more teams in - would you? (unless you are a purest, then you would say that it should only be the champions of league that was in the tournament - which is another idea that monseur platini has banded about the halls of brussels
oh and guys haven't you missed me ???
Welcome back, dyla. Good to hear from you again.
I don't necessarily agree with your point on the Champions League. I actually preferred it when it was straight knock out and only the champions were allowed entry. The name Champions League actually betrays the competitions credentials. It's not strictly the league of champions. It also de-values the achievements of great players from yesteryear. What I mean is that average players could theoretically be more successful than truly great players in terms of appearances and goals scored. I guess I'm one of those purists you referred to in your post. And, if UEFA believe that the UEFA Cup is losing its appeal, here's a notion: allow the number of true champions in the competition to increase and cut the number of non-champions and move them to the UEFA Cup. Maybe it's the champions league which is being de-valued with a non-champion team actually winning the champions league?
This is all wishful thinking really. The super clubs/countries will always look after their wealth while the smaller ones will continue to struggle financially
@ the 1st paragraph & 100% correct at the 2nd paragraph. 
