Euro 2016

[Christian]

If Norway should really want to be host for a ECH, as I have read in norwegian newspapers, (together with Sweden) the Lerkendal will be one of the four norwegian stadiums.
Since you are sitting near the sources, how far are the plans. Last time I saw that, it was planed to have 8 stadiums (4+4) with Ullevål, Lerkendal and two out of Ålesund, Stavanger, Bergen. First match in Oslo, final at Stockholm, Trondheim as 1/2-final-stadium.
If it is true, we have to build more space and seats.
_________________
Hilsen fra Tyskland

[Kjello]

Ullevaal, Lerkendal, Brann Stadium and Viking Stadium are the four stadiums representing Norway in a possibly Euro 2016 Sweden/Norway. Should UEFA expand to 24 teams a second stadium in Oslo is an option. As for Sweden Ullevi, and the new National Stadium are the two most secure options. Other options are the new Malmø Stadium, the new Olympicstadium in Helsingborg, and a second stadium i Stockholm with the new Søderstadion as an option. There are still discussions about where the final might be. The new National stadium will be a 5-star stadium from the begining. And there are plans of expanding Ullevi to a 60 000 5-star stadia using temporary stands. And since it was the cityhall in Gothenburg who came up with the prosposal of an Euro 2016 in Sweden and Norway I think they will work hard to get the final there.

[2mas]

Lerkendal will be extended to 30,000 if we get Euro 2016:







Read more: Avgjør stadionframtida i 2008

There will be a third, temporary terrace at the Adidas stand.

Independent of Euro 2016, the four open corners will most likely be closed with stands during a few years.

[Gerrit]

Although I know it increases Norway's chances drastically to team up with Sweden, I still am against duo organisations. Dito for my native Belgium bidding for World Cup 2018 with Holland. For various reasons, the majority being traditional and just personal preferences (rather than rational) I don't like these duo organisations.

I don't think that disliking duo organisations means Norway cannot make it. To host a Euro tournament you need 7 or 8 stadiums of approx 30000 capacity. Ullevaal already pretty much has that, then expand the stadiums in Bergen, Trondheim and Stavanger and that's 4. Then the question remains where to get the other 3 or 4 necessary stadiums, but surely there must be solutions for that. For example building an additional multifunctional stadium in Oslo, maybe drastically expanding the stadiums of a few other teams like Tromsø or Lillestrøm ...

I know partnering with Sweden would make it easier, but if it is any bit realistic I think Norway alone would be more pleasant. But that's just my opinion, I just feel a bit sceptic about duo organisations.
_________________
Rosenborg, forever pride of the North!

[Christian]

The chances to host the ECH are much bigger with Sweden as strong partner. To ask for it alone would be too much for Norway, IMO. Sweden had big tournaments, has a little bit more experience and is accepted by their national team. If Norway wants to host the cup they should join with Sweden, even if it would be more fun to host it on their own.
But the possibilities together with "söta bror" are higher!
_________________
Hilsen fra Tyskland

[2mas]

Yep, Norway and Sweden are stronger together.

This bid will be much better than the 2008 Nordic bid with Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland.

[Kjello]

There are no way Norway would be able to host a Euro alone. It will take investments in size of 500-600 mrd NOK to host it alone. A speedway train from Trondheim to Oslo would cost 60 mrd alone. Including the rest of southern Norway it would cost around 200-250 mrd NOK. And beside of that you would have to upgrade airports in all major cities. And not at least long needed road upgrading. I don't know the prices there, but somewhere around 250 mrd NOK I would think will be a normal estimate. And then you got atleast eight stadias who would need upgrading. That too would cost about 20 mrd NOK. A co hosting with Sweden however would only take like 1 mrd NOK in form of expanding stadias.

[attach]

mrd = billion

[Engelsk]

That would be great if Lerkendal was one of the stadiums!
_________________
thecomplexii.com - Founded 2005

[Troilonge]

It will be, but the challenge is to bring the Euros to Norway (and Sweden).

[Christian]

I think we have not such a bad position for hosting the ECH!
Middle-E had it by NED/BEL 2000, South had it bay Portugal in 2004, East will have it by POL/UKR in 2012. Now north should get it by NOR/SWE!
Main-question: Who will be the opponents?

Some points that are good for us:
* Norway had never a big tournament, we should get one finally
* Now north after the other spots of europe
* interesting area to host it
* the big challengers from east (Baltic, Slavian and Russian) are out because of 2012

Negative aspects:
* Co-host Sweden had it - the last time 1992. Not SO long ago.
* Our stadiums are not the most attractive ones
* will Norway (and maybe also Sweden) be able to host such a big tournament

Maybe we will get them and that could be a kind of being in a row of top-events in Norway as Ski-WCH in 2011 and possible Biathlon-WCH in 2013 or OWG 2018! Sports offense in Norway!!!
_________________
Hilsen fra Tyskland

[Gerrit]

Which Swedish cities would be serving as hosts besides Malmo and Stockholm?

I'm afraid if the tournament gets the go-ahead the Swedes will want the final in Stockholm. But I guess co-hosting will increase Norway's chances so I maybe should forget about a solo-hosting in Norway.
_________________
Rosenborg, forever pride of the North!

[Bakklandia]

Gothenburg vil most defenitly be one of the hostcities, or at least it should be.
_________________
Det er bedre å stupe ut i smørøyet enn å gå rundt grøten!

[Kjello]

[2mas]

UEFA approves 24-team EURO from 2016

Will be interesting to see which new requirements Norway and Sweden as possible hosts have to fulfill.

Possible new Lerkendal:

[Hvit mann som pusher 50]

Why the f*ck can't they make it symmetrical??
_________________
Du och vi, Alfred - du och vi

[2mas]

Don't know why Skutle gave Dagbladet just that picture, which shows just stage 3 or 4 of a rebuild. The final rebuild will have a roof connecting to the Adidas stand.

But because of the railroad, road and Lerchendal gård behind the Adidas stand, it can't be as high as the three other stands.

[Søring]

How much of a chance is there to relocate the railroad, road and Lerkendal gård so that all the roofs can be equally high?
_________________
Vi vinner CL i 2012

[Hvit mann som pusher 50]

Probably about as big as pigs gaining the ability to fly
_________________
Du och vi, Alfred - du och vi

[2mas]

No chance, I guess. New tiers on three of four stands give a capacity of 40,000, and that's enough.

There is a lot of stadiums with different height of the stands. As long as the roof is fully "connected" like at e.g. City of Manchester Stadium it is fine with me:

[Søring]

damn, so we won't get a Rosenborg-version of Allianz arena....

But if we have to settle with a stadium like M City's ....
_________________
Vi vinner CL i 2012

[Kjello]

Well, I think that picture look like a mini version of Old Trafford.

[Gerrit]

Oh no, spare us of that. I was at Old Trafford for a United game. I know I may not be entirely neutral as I strongly dislike the club, but I found the stadium a total turn off.

I do hope if Lerkendal needs to be rebuilt we keep it a real football stadium without casinos or shopping malls underneath the stands...

The new 24 teams set up in fact means every decent team has 50 percent chance of qualifying. Because UEFA has 53 members but some of hem (San Marino, Faroe Islands, Andorra, etc) wont qualify anyway. Take away those and you will end up with about 45 teams with a real chance of qualifying. It probably has positive and negative sides. Downside is that the big teams will now always qualify and we can forget about qualification shocks like England not making the Euro 2008. On the other hand, 8 extra teams means we will see back some old glories and greet some new faces who narrowly missed qualification last time, a 24 teams setup probably means the return of Norway, Belgium, Scotland, Ireland, etc + the first participation of Israel, Bosnia, Finland, ...

So not sure, the new setup has a downside and an upside. As I prefer to see some new teams rather than the same games over and over again, I prefer to focus on the upside and the new teams that will finally make it. And if Norway does not qualify now with the new format, there is something very weird going on.
_________________
Rosenborg, forever pride of the North!

[mrstpatsfc]

24 teams puts an end to the pain iv felt the last few years when ireland and norway have missed out on big events,six years since the last time either graced a big international competition

[Gerrit]

The question is how the map of Europe will look like in 8 years time. Some borders may disappear while some others may be created. I mean, has the Balkan finished the dividing of land finally or will we see a few new Eastern European national teams by then? Maybe countries such as South Ossetia, Gibraltar, Greenland and Northern Cyprus find a back door to enter UEFA after all?

If the new rule would get into effect right now about 50 percent of countries would qualify (in fact you get over 50 pct chance when realising the likes of san Marino, Andorra and Malta will not qualify anyway). By 2016 the map may look totally different, we talk about 24 out of how many teams? I expect Kosovo to be competing in UEFA within the next 2 years, but probably this wont be the only change in the football landscape of the constantly evolving Europe.
_________________
Rosenborg, forever pride of the North!