Scotland/Wales/Norn Iron bid for Euro 2016

The place to discuss Scottish football
Gunboat Briggs
Posts: 83
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2005 5:50 pm
Location: Derby
Contact:

Post by Gunboat Briggs » Fri Dec 05, 2008 1:25 am

Yes of course we could choose to build the necessary facilities. However, we have no ongoing use for them, hence vast expense. The other countries you quote staged much smaller tournaments - 8 teams for Sweden, 16 for the rest. We could easily stage a tournament of 1992 proportions but that is no longer the case - our time to bid for this has come and gone.

You couldn't graft extra seats on to the exisiting Edinburgh / Dundee / Aberdeen grounds and there is no need for new stadia in these places.

You are correct to mention Murrayfield which I forgot before.

StAndrewsHMFC
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 8:26 pm
Contact:

Post by StAndrewsHMFC » Fri Dec 05, 2008 11:06 am

I don't think there is any reason why in the future we should try and host an event like the euros in the future. It would be better if there was still only 16 teams qualifying, but we should be able to build facitlities with required facilities for the championships which are reduced down afterwards like the commonwealth stadium in Manchester.

However given the level of national debt we're in just now, committing ourselves to a huge amount of probably (i'm guessing) government expenditure seems completely stupid. The wisdom of spending vast sums of money on Olympics and Commonwealth games when we have huge borrowings and resultant interest payments is something that really should be questioned, let alone adding another championships into the bargain. But then there is this myth that the games will magically conjure up loads of money for the country.

LEATHERSTOCKING
Posts: 1618
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 1:11 pm
Contact:

Post by LEATHERSTOCKING » Fri Dec 05, 2008 11:24 am

Remember, we`re dealing with political animals here be they in goverment or on sports councils eg. the SFA. I wouldn`t let any of them run a whelk stall. "If you can`t do it, get on the committee."

Burnie_man

Post by Burnie_man » Fri Dec 05, 2008 12:03 pm

Gunboat Briggs wrote:You couldn't graft extra seats on to the exisiting Edinburgh / Dundee / Aberdeen grounds and there is no need for new stadia in these places.
Given that Aberdeen are already looking at building a new stadium, plus Hearts and Hibs are looking to redevelop their own stadia's, they obviously think there is a need. Dundee have also looked at moving/redveloping.

Rebuild/redevelop the stadia to the neccesary capacities and reduce them afterwards if needs be.

Burnie_man

Post by Burnie_man » Fri Dec 05, 2008 12:06 pm

StAndrewsHMFC wrote:I don't think there is any reason why in the future we should try and host an event like the euros in the future. It would be better if there was still only 16 teams qualifying, but we should be able to build facitlities with required facilities for the championships which are reduced down afterwards like the commonwealth stadium in Manchester.
Spot on
However given the level of national debt we're in just now, committing ourselves to a huge amount of probably (i'm guessing) government expenditure seems completely stupid. The wisdom of spending vast sums of money on Olympics and Commonwealth games when we have huge borrowings and resultant interest payments is something that really should be questioned, let alone adding another championships into the bargain. But then there is this myth that the games will magically conjure up loads of money for the country.
This is where you're wrong, past tournaments have proven that the income for a host country vastly outweighs the expenditure on infrastucture.

For the failed Euro 2008 bid, the estimated cost of upgrading stadia was £80/100m, the estimated income from the tournament was around £400/500m.

lbb
Posts: 1316
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:25 am
Contact:

Post by lbb » Fri Dec 05, 2008 12:38 pm

Aberdeen have been talking about moving away from Pittodrie for years.

Anyone who takes Hearts' proposed redevelopment of Tynecastle seriously is aff their heid.

Hibs are only talking about redeveloping one stand - and I think even that has been postponed for now.

Even leaving side the stadia issues, I doubt if even our two biggest cities could cope with the numbers involved in terms of hotel accomodation, transport, etc.

StAndrewsHMFC
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 8:26 pm
Contact:

Post by StAndrewsHMFC » Fri Dec 05, 2008 1:57 pm

Burnie_man wrote:This is where you're wrong, past tournaments have proven that the income for a host country vastly outweighs the expenditure on infrastucture.

For the failed Euro 2008 bid, the estimated cost of upgrading stadia was £80/100m, the estimated income from the tournament was around £400/500m.
You may well be right but who is the income going to. Basically is this the return on investment for the government or does it include TV and sponsorship money, for example, which goes straight to uefa bypassing the host government? Additionally you have a £80m-100m hole to fill until this income comes in at the tournament, which would no doubt be filled by further borrowing- I just don't think this is what we should be thinking about now.

Burnie_man

Post by Burnie_man » Fri Dec 05, 2008 3:05 pm

lbb wrote:Aberdeen have been talking about moving away from Pittodrie for years.

Anyone who takes Hearts' proposed redevelopment of Tynecastle seriously is aff their heid.

Hibs are only talking about redeveloping one stand - and I think even that has been postponed for now.
...and if a bid was succesful then these projects would be funded if these particular stadia were included in the bid
Even leaving side the stadia issues, I doubt if even our two biggest cities could cope with the numbers involved in terms of hotel accomodation, transport, etc.
Hotel accomodation is a major issue and I would imagine is one of the big stumbling blocks.

Burnie_man

Post by Burnie_man » Fri Dec 05, 2008 3:13 pm

StAndrewsHMFC wrote:You may well be right but who is the income going to. Basically is this the return on investment for the government or does it include TV and sponsorship money, for example, which goes straight to uefa bypassing the host government? Additionally you have a £80m-100m hole to fill until this income comes in at the tournament, which would no doubt be filled by further borrowing- I just don't think this is what we should be thinking about now.
£100m in Government terms, in order to facilitate a boost to the economy and create jobs, is buttons.

Hotels, restuarants, pubs, companies supplying all three, shops, transport companies etc.....the list of beneficiaries is endless, plus we would have the legacy of better stadia, not just where the games are played but where the teams will be training.

It would be a far bigger boost to Scotland's economy than the Commonwealth Games, which incidentally is costing £300m......

All that said, I'm sceptical whether UEFA would go for three host countries, then again nobody expected Poland and Ukraine to ger 2012.

Scottish
Site Admin
Posts: 7665
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 4:51 pm
Contact:

Post by Scottish » Sat Dec 06, 2008 11:08 am

I've been offline for a bit so an playing catch-up here. Gunboat Briggs hits it on the head regarding government spending. It would be political suicide to spend the sums of money involved on building the necessary infrastructure right now. It's going to be difficult enough to keep the commitments already made in respect the Olympic and Commonwealth Games.

That leaves private funding and banks will hardly fall over themselves at the minute to lend the necessary.

lbb and others mention the lack of preparedness of the clubs and that's surely a big stumbling block. As I said earlier not one football ground in the country has joined the Glaswegian trio in becoming ready to host a major tournament in the seven years since the idea was first mooted. And if the cash and the will has been lacking for the past seven years it's not going to suddenly materialise now.

Gunboat also says "our time to bid for this has come and gone" and the SFA themselves appeared to recognise this when voting to extend the competition to 24 clubs. Quite why and where the renewed enthusiasm has come from is difficult to discern

Scottish
Site Admin
Posts: 7665
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 4:51 pm
Contact:

Post by Scottish » Sat Dec 06, 2008 11:15 am

To deal with Burnie Man's comments:

“To try and bring this back on topic,”

You’re the one who blew it off course. All I mentioned in my initial post was the hypocrisy of the SFA in grabbing everything they could take from the Olympic table while refusing to take part. I think it would be better all round if they withdrew from taking any part in the Olympics if they are determined to prevent Scots from competing.

“a tournament which few football fans in the UK take any notice”

Yes, the same argument which used to be used to justify not showing the European Championships or the African Championships or any other competition in which there was no home presence. “Wha’s like us” indeed. What does that Leo Messi know? Or Ronaldinho? Fancy wasting their time spending three weeks in China. And didn’t those fools watching realise they were watching diddy players in a diddy cup?

In any case even if it were true, so what? I don’t see supporters queueing outside velodromes every weekend yet it doesn’t devalue any of Chris Hoy’s gold medals one whit.

“Little BBC coverage” yet at the same time it’s somehow an campaign to make “everyone feel more British?"

You mean by offering Scottish footballers the same opportunities available to Scots in every other Olympic sport for generations? The campaigning going in is the absolutely hysterical reaction from those who seek to discriminate against Scottish footballers. Think about it for a minute. What you are advocating would prevent Scottish men - and women - from competing in the Olympic Games on Scottish soil. Do you think denying Scottish men and women the same chances open to Scots in every other Olympic sport and open to competitors in every other country in the world is somehow patriotic?

Do you advocate withdrawing Scots from other sports? Boxing? Tennis? Cycling? Swimming? Curling? Etc etc etc.

“The Olympics should be the pinnacle of achievement for those sports that are included. Football doesn't even come close to that”

Neither does Boxing. Nor Tennis. In fact in that sport it’s (at best) the fifth most important competition whereas in football it’s the third biggest international tournament. Should those sports be dropped from the Olympic roster? Going further should Scots participate in the Ryder Cup? Or the Lions XV. After all both golf and rugby union have World Cups. Should Scots be banned from playing for the England cricket XI? Or is it just footballers you seek to discriminate against?

BTW and even more off-topic your "Chamberlain-esque" comment is, in my view, not only an inaccurate over-reaction but a downright offensive one.

Burnie_man

Post by Burnie_man » Sat Dec 06, 2008 12:04 pm

scottish wrote:To deal with Burnie Man's comments:
OK, since you insist.
You’re the one who blew it off course.
Eh no, you brought the Olympics into it and used it to criticise the SFA.
All I mentioned in my initial post was the hypocrisy of the SFA in grabbing everything they could take from the Olympic table while refusing to take part.
The SFA do not own Hampden, so what are they grabbing exactly? Do you also agree that the FAW do not own the Millennium Stadium as you claimed?
I think it would be better all round if they withdrew from taking any part in the Olympics if they are determined to prevent Scots from competing.
They do not have any part in the Olympics, and they are stopping nobody from competing that doesn't already have a chance to compete.
Yes, the same argument which used to be used to justify not showing the European Championships
25 years ago? c'mon......
“Wha’s like us” indeed. What does that Leo Messi know? Or Ronaldinho? Fancy wasting their time spending three weeks in China. And didn’t those fools watching realise they were watching diddy players in a diddy cup?
It's an U23 tournament for goodness sake, of course it's completely insignificant in the scheme of things, and it doesn't surprise me that a few big stars want the chance to enhance their profiles/sponsorship deals rather than some altruistic desire to help the kids win a medal. The organising committee's themselves want these players to try and enhance the profile of their under age kick about, that's why there's the three overage player rule.
In any case even if it were true, so what? I don’t see supporters queueing outside velodromes every weekend yet it doesn’t devalue any of Chris Hoy’s gold medals one whit.
In indoor cycling, the Olympics is the pinnacle of it's sport, so why would Hoy's gold medals be devalued in any way?
You mean by offering Scottish footballers the same opportunities available to Scots in every other Olympic sport for generations? The campaigning going in is the absolutely hysterical reaction from those who seek to discriminate against Scottish footballers. Think about it for a minute. What you are advocating would prevent Scottish men - and women - from competing in the Olympic Games on Scottish soil. Do you think denying Scottish men and women the same chances open to Scots in every other Olympic sport and open to competitors in every other country in the world is somehow patriotic?
Nobody is denying anyone anything, where was the outcry for a Team GB in Beijing? or where was it for Sydney? or Barcelona? Oh, there was none because nobody was in the slightest bit interested - don't you agree? It's nothing more than a dangerous political stunt, that much is obvious. It's a stunt that few football fans want. The campaign is there to PROTECT the footballing futures of young Scots/Welsh/N.Irish/English who want to represent their country in World Cups and European Championships.
Do you advocate withdrawing Scots from other sports? Boxing? Tennis? Cycling? Swimming? Curling? Etc etc etc.
Why would we? are any of those sports anything to do with FIFA? do any of our teams compete internationally in those sports as a result of a favour by their governing body?
Neither does Boxing. Nor Tennis. In fact in that sport it’s (at best) the fifth most important competition whereas in football it’s the third biggest international tournament.
Give me a break, it's not even in the top 5 of football tournaments. Do you honestly consider an underage tournament of more importance than the South American Championships, or the African Nations Cup (which you used as an example above)?
BTW and even more off-topic your "Chamberlain-esque" comment is, in my view, not only an inaccurate over-reaction but a downright offensive one.
Who is being hysterical now? offensive to whom exactly? It's a very accurate description of the ridiculous behaviour of Murphy. If there was really nothing to worry about and the NoTeamGB campaign is hysteria, why do we have high ranking Government officials going behind the back's of 3 home nations and speaking to FIFA? Government interference is a dangerous game to play, Brown should keep his nose out.
Last edited by Burnie_man on Sat Dec 06, 2008 12:13 pm, edited 5 times in total.

Burnie_man

Post by Burnie_man » Sat Dec 06, 2008 12:07 pm

scottish wrote:Gunboat also says "our time to bid for this has come and gone" and the SFA themselves appeared to recognise this when voting to extend the competition to 24 clubs. Quite why and where the renewed enthusiasm has come from is difficult to discern
Our time has gone as a sole host of the Euro's, that's not what is being proposed.

Scottish
Site Admin
Posts: 7665
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 4:51 pm
Contact:

Post by Scottish » Sat Dec 06, 2008 8:34 pm

Burnie_man wrote: Eh no, you brought the Olympics into it and used it to criticise the SFA.
Yes, I used the Olympics as the perfect example of the SFA wanting to have their cake and eat it
Burnie_man wrote:Do you also agree that the FAW do not own the Millennium Stadium as you claimed?
Perhaps you'll be good enough to point out exactly where I made any such claim
Burnie_man wrote:They do not have any part in the Olympics, and they are stopping nobody from competing that doesn't already have a chance to compete.
They are trying to stop young Scots from competing in 2012. In one sport and one sport only.
Burnie_man wrote:25 years ago? c'mon......
What's the cut-off point for comparisons then? Obviously Barcelona 1992 is okay because you used it but Euro 1984 is not. So, sometime between those dates I guess. Let me know the exact year
Burnie_man wrote:It's an U23 tournament for goodness sake, of course it's completely insignificant in the scheme of things, and it doesn't surprise me that a few big stars want the chance to enhance their profiles/sponsorship deals rather than some altruistic desire to help the kids win a medal. The organising committee's themselves want these players to try and enhance the profile of their under age kick about, that's why there's the three overage player rule.
Enhance their profiles? Messi? Ronaldinho? For crying out loud Barcelona took the Argentine Olympic committee to court over Messi. As for the organising committee wanting top players to compete, what a nerve. Next thing you know every competition will be doing the same thing
Burnie_man wrote: In indoor cycling, the Olympics is the pinnacle of it's sport, so why would Hoy's gold medals be devalued in any way?
I was referring to yourstatement that "“a tournament which few football fans in the UK take any notice” was one reason for not taking part. But, okay, the Olympics is not the pinnacle for boxers or tennis players. You still haven't said if these sports should be allowed or whether it's just football at the games you don't like.

Burnie_man wrote:Nobody is denying anyone anything
FFS the SFA backed by the First Minister are trying to stop Scottish men and women from taking part in the Olympics.
Burnie_man wrote: It's nothing more than a dangerous political stunt, that much is obvious. It's a stunt that few football fans want. The campaign is there to PROTECT the footballing futures of young Scots/Welsh/N.Irish/English who want to represent their country in World Cups and European Championships.
The "political stunt" is coming from those who seek to deny young Scots the chance to take part in the Olympic Games. Why should Scots not be allowed to take part?

Burnie_man wrote:Why would we? are any of those sports anything to do with FIFA? do any of our teams compete internationally in those sports as a result of a favour by their governing body?
Ah, so it's football only. Pure discrimination against young footballers

Burnie_man wrote:Give me a break, it's not even in the top 5 of football tournaments. Do you honestly consider an underage tournament of more importance than the South American Championships, or the African Nations Cup (which you used as an example above)?
Are you serious? How many players can take part in both the African and South American competitions? I thought it was obvious that I meant the Olympics were third in importance with the World Cup coming first and the continental competitions coming next IN THEIR RESPECTIVE CONTINENTS.

Let me spell it out for you - it is the third most important international tournament any player can take part in.

Burnie_man wrote:Who is being hysterical now? offensive to whom exactly? It's a very accurate description of the ridiculous behaviour of Murphy. If there was really nothing to worry about and the NoTeamGB campaign is hysteria, why do we have high ranking Government officials going behind the back's of 3 home nations and speaking to FIFA? Government interference is a dangerous game to play, Brown should keep his nose out.
YOU are being hysterical, comparing the Munich agreement to the 2012 Olympic Games. BTW if governments kept their noses out entirely there would be no games in London in 2012.

But I agree that government should interfere as little as possible. In the current instance if some people are determined to prevent young Scots from competing in one of the sports then I reckon there is an onus on government to ensure equality of treatment for all athletes. The last time any government in the UK tried to stop athletes from competing in the Olympics was Moscow 1980 (I know, it's beyond your arbitrary cut-off date for comparisons) and it was a spectacular failure.

Let's hope history repeats itself.
Last edited by Scottish on Sat Dec 06, 2008 8:39 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Scottish
Site Admin
Posts: 7665
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 4:51 pm
Contact:

Post by Scottish » Sat Dec 06, 2008 8:35 pm

Burnie_man wrote:
scottish wrote:Gunboat also says "our time to bid for this has come and gone" and the SFA themselves appeared to recognise this when voting to extend the competition to 24 clubs. Quite why and where the renewed enthusiasm has come from is difficult to discern
Our time has gone as a sole host of the Euro's, that's not what is being proposed.
Our time has come and gone even as a co-host.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 4 guests