Gibraltar

[Nickyboy]

As a Guernsey based City fan the Guernsey Football Club is an awesome concept although very expensive as we have to pay our opponents travel costs and as we progress beyond the Rymans League we're undoutedly going to need non-Guernsey based players - was hoping for a loan deal for RSC but I think our strikers are probably better...

Guernsey considered joining FIFA many years ago as Faroes, Bermuda, Andorra all have smaller populations but we decided to remain within the English FA in the hope that we ever find another Matt Le Tissier who could play for England.

Jersey on the other hand play in red, enough said.

Red sky at night shepherd's delight, ren sky in the morning bloody good job because Jersey's on fire.

Fuck off Donkey... :-)

[Socrates]

Vatican City will be next...



Seriously, the answer is pre-qualifying will give these teams some meaningful matches against each other and help them improve...

[Bianchi on Ice]

There are too many teams in qualifying now who have no prospect of improvement because of small population, no domestic league stfucture or players playing abroad. There are countries who have improved over the last 30 years..Turkey, norway, denmark used to be shit but they all had the ingredients to get better...and some sides like georgia, estonia and albania have potential to cause a suprise. Gibraltar Andorra san marino et al are six points for everybody and that wont change. pointless move.

[Vantage]

As a Guernsey based City fan the Guernsey Football Club is an awesome concept although very expensive as we have to pay our opponents travel costs and as we progress beyond the Rymans League we're undoutedly going to need non-Guernsey based players - was hoping for a loan deal for RSC but I think our strikers are probably better...

Guernsey considered joining FIFA many years ago as Faroes, Bermuda, Andorra all have smaller populations but we decided to remain within the English FA in the hope that we ever find another Matt Le Tissier who could play for England.

Jersey on the other hand play in red, enough said.

Red sky at night shepherd's delight, ren sky in the morning bloody good job because Jersey's on fire.

Fuck off Donkey... :-)

Said the Crapaud. Let's all have a bean jar, let's all have a bean jar nananaaaa na na naaaaa na na

This thread is now so far off topic all it needs is Oscar Puffin.

[Piccsnumberoneblue]

Ridiculous. What's next? Scania, Gothia, Svecia?
CTID!!

Scania are awful. They just park the bus!

[Fullartj]

Why? this is ridiculous there are already too many teams in UEFA.

Cant they just organise a tournament between the very small teams and that way they have a chance of winning some silerware. They could even call it the Ronnie Corbett throphy!

[BlueinBosnia]

Why? this is ridiculous there are already too many teams in UEFA.

Cant they just organise a tournament between the very small teams and that way they have a chance of winning some silerware. They could even call it the Ronnie Corbett throphy!

There's probably also Kosovo to come at some point in the (probably not-so-near) future. Maybe Greenland, too.

On the subject of a trophy for the smaller teams, I'd be all in favour of a first round of qualification for the 10 lowest-ranked teams, with two to go through to 'make up the numbers' in full qualifying (or numbers adjusted to make the right number for even groups). It'd have the benefits of reducing the international schedule by two qualifying games each tournament, and free up the fixture list for these teams to be able to compete against each other and teams from further afield, with the occasional 'prestige' friendly, to increase their FIFA rankings. If such a tournament was held in one or two host nations (alternating for each tournament), it would be a more reliable, predictable and sustainable boost to tourism, with 3-5 small countries playing a week-long group tournament than, say, Faroes vs Poland, where I am sure transport difficulties, diaspora spread, etc. make it kind of unpredictable how many fans will turn up, and local trade and income fluctuate massively dependent on the nation and time of year.

[Evenmydoghatesunited]

There's probably also Kosovo to come at some point in the (probably not-so-near) future. Maybe Greenland, too.

On the subject of a trophy for the smaller teams, I'd be all in favour of a first round of qualification for the 10 lowest-ranked teams, with two to go through to 'make up the numbers' in full qualifying (or numbers adjusted to make the right number for even groups). It'd have the benefits of reducing the international schedule by two qualifying games each tournament, and free up the fixture list for these teams to be able to compete against each other and teams from further afield, with the occasional 'prestige' friendly, to increase their FIFA rankings. If such a tournament was held in one or two host nations (alternating for each tournament), it would be a more reliable, predictable and sustainable boost to tourism, with 3-5 small countries playing a week-long group tournament than, say, Faroes vs Poland, where I am sure transport difficulties, diaspora spread, etc. make it kind of unpredictable how many fans will turn up, and local trade and income fluctuate massively dependent on the nation and time of year.

Trouble is football now sees itself as a world political force, a business and a chance to employ the unemployable as administrators. After that it might be a game.

Take a look at Wembley (cannot afford itself so too many matches); Qatar (homosexuality illegal, hot as hell) and the various crap that goes on around the G14 bias. All of these are examples why the obvious and the practical are frowned upon and never likely to happen even though your suggestion is exactly how most fans would see it fans are the bottom of the shitty heap.

[BlueinBosnia]

Qatar (homosexuality illegal, hot as hell)

I wouldn't have put you down as the 'risky' type! ;)

[Evenmydoghatesunited]

I wouldn't have put you down as the 'risky' type! ;)

"Good with colours" you mean? Well no, but I'm a live and let live sort of bloke and countries like Qatar are welcome to their laws but not welcome to be running a global competition and making everyone who is in step out of step, if you get my meaning.

[BlueinBosnia]

I wouldn't have put you down as the 'risky' type! ;)

"Good with colours" you mean? Well no, but I'm a live and let live sort of bloke and countries like Qatar are welcome to their laws but not welcome to be running a global competition and making everyone who is in step out of step, if you get my meaning.

No, as in (homosexuality illegal, [I find it] hot as hell). Maybe not the easiest of jokes to decipher.

I agree with you that it's the wrong place to host the World Cup, but (besides a safety factor for players and fans) climate shouldn't be an issue. I have no problem with the competition being switched to winter. I, like you have a problem with their human rights issues, but at the same time one man's human rights is another man's politics, and football is supposed to be apolitical. It's a tricky issue, and I guess we just have to put our trust in FIFA to spectacularly mishandle it.

[CTID Hants]

I agree with you that it's the wrong place to host the World Cup............... I have no problem with the competition being switched to winter.

How will this work contractually with the European leagues commitments with TV rights etc, Sky wouldn't be happy to be losing all these leagues for a Month or so required for the World Cup!

Just wondering?

[BlueinBosnia]

I agree with you that it's the wrong place to host the World Cup............... I have no problem with the competition being switched to winter.

How will this work contractually with the European leagues commitments with TV rights etc, Sky wouldn't be happy to be losing all these leagues for a Month or so required for the World Cup!

Just wondering?

How many leagues don't have winter breaks? How do summer leagues currently cope with it? I think only 2 or 3 leagues will be heavily affected (assuming others simply extend their winter breaks by 2-3 weeks) in Europe. Elsewhere, I don't know when leagues start and/or end, but remember seasons are the other way round in the Southern Hemisphere (read: South America).

The effect in England will be this: with the season either starting earlier or finishing later (or both), Sky will take advantage of being able to show more midweek games during the summer holidays, attracting more children to the idea of televised football. That, with the added bonus for the FA of a World Cup coming shortly after Christmas (England shirt/pencil case/whatever being a must for all kids) makes me think the idea won't be opposed by the powers-that-be as 2022 approaches.

[CTID Hants]

I agree with you that it's the wrong place to host the World Cup............... I have no problem with the competition being switched to winter.

How will this work contractually with the European leagues commitments with TV rights etc, Sky wouldn't be happy to be losing all these leagues for a Month or so required for the World Cup!

Just wondering?

How many leagues don't have winter breaks? How do summer leagues currently cope with it? I think only 2 or 3 leagues will be heavily affected (assuming others simply extend their winter breaks by 2-3 weeks) in Europe. Elsewhere, I don't know when leagues start and/or end, but remember seasons are the other way round in the Southern Hemisphere (read: South America).

The effect in England will be this: with the season either starting earlier or finishing later (or both), Sky will take advantage of being able to show more midweek games during the summer holidays, attracting more children to the idea of televised football. That, with the added bonus for the FA of a World Cup coming shortly after Christmas (England shirt/pencil case/whatever being a must for all kids) makes me think the idea won't be opposed by the powers-that-be as 2022 approaches.

The Prem league have publicly stated they are opposed to a winter break, I guess there will be plenty of time for them to be persuaded.

Can't see Sky being happy as most people take their holidays in July/August here in the UK and people are less inclined to sit in watching footie IF the weather is fine. I would have thought August would be the lowest viewing figures that Sky have for footie viewing? People more inclined to watch footie on telly when it is cold wet and miserable outside.

Also to date Sky have never had the rights to the World cup, so from their point they aint gonna like it much at all, unless FIFA change their policy of the WC being shown on free to air channels.

I am not sure how the whole Prem League/FA thing works and if the FA can just tell the Prem/Sky tough tittie or not?

[Piccsnumberoneblue]

I agree with you that it's the wrong place to host the World Cup............... I have no problem with the competition being switched to winter.

How will this work contractually with the European leagues commitments with TV rights etc, Sky wouldn't be happy to be losing all these leagues for a Month or so required for the World Cup!

Just wondering?

How many leagues don't have winter breaks? How do summer leagues currently cope with it? I think only 2 or 3 leagues will be heavily affected (assuming others simply extend their winter breaks by 2-3 weeks) in Europe. Elsewhere, I don't know when leagues start and/or end, but remember seasons are the other way round in the Southern Hemisphere (read: South America).

The effect in England will be this: with the season either starting earlier or finishing later (or both), Sky will take advantage of being able to show more midweek games during the summer holidays, attracting more children to the idea of televised football. That, with the added bonus for the FA of a World Cup coming shortly after Christmas (England shirt/pencil case/whatever being a must for all kids) makes me think the idea won't be opposed by the powers-that-be as 2022 approaches.

The Prem league have publicly stated they are opposed to a winter break, I guess there will be plenty of time for them to be persuaded.

Can't see Sky being happy as most people take their holidays in July/August here in the UK and people are less inclined to sit in watching footie IF the weather is fine. I would have thought August would be the lowest viewing figures that Sky have for footie viewing? People more inclined to watch footie on telly when it is cold wet and miserable outside.

Also to date Sky have never had the rights to the World cup, so from their point they aint gonna like it much at all, unless FIFA change their policy of the WC being shown on free to air channels.

I am not sure how the whole Prem League/FA thing works and if the FA can just tell the Prem/Sky tough tittie or not?

The FA sold all their power to the Premier League. I doubt they could tell them anything.
Furthermore The World Cup tends to use up over two months with squad 'get togethers', acclimatisation, friendlies and a month for the competition proper. Winter breaks aren't that long so it would have an effect on virtually every league in Europe.

[BlueinBosnia]

I think only 2 or 3 leagues will be heavily affected (assuming others simply extend their winter breaks by 2-3 weeks) in Europe.

The FA sold all their power to the Premier League. I doubt they could tell them anything.
Furthermore The World Cup tends to use up over two months with squad 'get togethers', acclimatisation, friendlies and a month for the competition proper. Winter breaks aren't that long so it would have an effect on virtually every league in Europe.

Depends. They range from 3 weeks to 3.5 months. I think considerably over half of the leagues (admittedly, many of these are less powerful ones) have over 6 weeks.

Don't the FA have the power over the international team, though, and not the Premier League? I'd assume, therefore, that whatever the FA decided (if it came to a vote at FIFA), and whatever the outcome of such a vote, the PL would be forced to 'play ball'.

[CTID Hants]

Depends. They range from 3 weeks to 3.5 months. I think considerably over half of the leagues (admittedly, many of these are less powerful ones) have over 6 weeks.

Don't the FA have the power over the international team, though, and not the Premier League? I'd assume, therefore, that whatever the FA decided (if it came to a vote at FIFA), and whatever the outcome of such a vote, the PL would be forced to 'play ball'.

Looking at the bigger picture, it could also affect comps long standing like the AFCON. Even the CL, Euros QF (ok unlikely,perhaps)' but would UEFA want a season where the majority of the top players are fatigued from WC duties having not long arrived back? Also to consider most FA cup type comps would be thrown out of kilter across Europe?

Bottom line, it was nothing other than a FIFA back hander, nothing to do with "the good of the game" & now they are going to try and fuck up the entire world footballing calendar (unless i am wrong and other countries hate the current timings/dates i.e. June/July) to make it fit.

[BlueinBosnia]

Depends. They range from 3 weeks to 3.5 months. I think considerably over half of the leagues (admittedly, many of these are less powerful ones) have over 6 weeks.

Don't the FA have the power over the international team, though, and not the Premier League? I'd assume, therefore, that whatever the FA decided (if it came to a vote at FIFA), and whatever the outcome of such a vote, the PL would be forced to 'play ball'.

Looking at the bigger picture, it could also affect comps long standing like the AFCON. Even the CL, Euros QF (ok unlikely,perhaps)' but would UEFA want a season where the majority of the top players are fatigued from WC duties having not long arrived back? Also to consider most FA cup type comps would be thrown out of kilter across Europe?

Bottom line, it was nothing other than a FIFA back hander, nothing to do with "the good of the game" & now they are going to try and fuck up the entire world footballing calendar (unless i am wrong and other countries hate the current timings/dates i.e. June/July) to make it fit.

How does the current setup affect the leagues of Brazil, Russia (until last season), Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay (until 2005) and numerous other countries, that are all hefty(ish) players on the world stage, and certainly wouldn't raise an eyebrow by being in the World Cup. Brazil seems to just about scrape through the inconvenience.