Because they invested in the bid last time around and a 4 nation bid has happened before.
So it's unfair to attempt to improve your chances to succeed after a failed bid? Unless they made an agreement to apply once more as the same group in case of failure, I don't see how this is unfair.
Because they put in the same hard work to the bid and should get the chance to host again!
So by your logic, they should keep spending time, money, and effort on a bid that is unlikely to win, rather than split the “partnership” apart and have a reasonable chance at winning.
One need to learn from failures and adjust accordingly, if not, you’ll just fail again and again. In this case the lesson was that 4 countries bid for a Woman Euro is not attractive to the decision makers.
Note, I’m making no statement if the decision makers are right or wrong.
So it's unfair to attempt to improve your chances to succeed after a failed bid? Unless they made an agreement to apply once more as the same group in case of failure, I don't see how this is unfair.
Because they put in the same hard work to the bid and should get the chance to host again!
So by your logic, they should keep spending time, money, and effort on a bid that is unlikely to win, rather than split the “partnership” apart and have a reasonable chance at winning.
One need to learn from failures and adjust accordingly, if not, you’ll just fail again and again. In this case the lesson was that 4 countries bid for a Woman Euro is not attractive to the decision makers.
Note, I’m making no statement if the decision makers are right or wrong.
They just chose Switzerland over Nordics. They prefers that to Poland and France!
Because they put in the same hard work to the bid and should get the chance to host again!
So by your logic, they should keep spending time, money, and effort on a bid that is unlikely to win, rather than split the “partnership” apart and have a reasonable chance at winning.
One need to learn from failures and adjust accordingly, if not, you’ll just fail again and again. In this case the lesson was that 4 countries bid for a Woman Euro is not attractive to the decision makers.
Note, I’m making no statement if the decision makers are right or wrong.
They just chose Switzerland over Nordics. They prefers that to Poland and France!
The other 2 should bid as well!
What about “a four-country bid is quite unlikely to win as the tournament is too spread out.” Is hard to understand?
Their options are:
1) submit “a four-country bid is quite unlikely to win”
2) go with a two-country bid
I guess they could have tried a three-country bid, but it’s likely to have the same issues as a four-country bid.
So by your logic, they should keep spending time, money, and effort on a bid that is unlikely to win, rather than split the “partnership” apart and have a reasonable chance at winning.
One need to learn from failures and adjust accordingly, if not, you’ll just fail again and again. In this case the lesson was that 4 countries bid for a Woman Euro is not attractive to the decision makers.
Note, I’m making no statement if the decision makers are right or wrong.
They just chose Switzerland over Nordics. They prefers that to Poland and France!
The other 2 should bid as well!
What about “a four-country bid is quite unlikely to win as the tournament is too spread out.” Is hard to understand?
Their options are:
1) submit “a four-country bid is quite unlikely to win”
2) go with a two-country bid
I guess they could have tried a three-country bid, but it’s likely to have the same issues as a four-country bid.
I don't think that's why it failed. It failed because the ExCo preferred Switzerland. If Switzerland hadn't bid Nordics would have almost certainly won!
They just chose Switzerland over Nordics. They prefers that to Poland and France!
The other 2 should bid as well!
What about “a four-country bid is quite unlikely to win as the tournament is too spread out.” Is hard to understand?
Their options are:
1) submit “a four-country bid is quite unlikely to win”
2) go with a two-country bid
I guess they could have tried a three-country bid, but it’s likely to have the same issues as a four-country bid.
I don't think that's why it failed. It failed because the ExCo preferred Switzerland. If Switzerland hadn't bid Nordics would have almost certainly won!
In that case, what is your explanation for two countries being dropped?
Sagy wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 15:16
What about “a four-country bid is quite unlikely to win as the tournament is too spread out.” Is hard to understand?
Their options are:
1) submit “a four-country bid is quite unlikely to win”
2) go with a two-country bid
I guess they could have tried a three-country bid, but it’s likely to have the same issues as a four-country bid.
I don't think that's why it failed. It failed because the ExCo preferred Switzerland. If Switzerland hadn't bid Nordics would have almost certainly won!
In that case, what is your explanation for two countries being dropped?
Logistical reasons, those 2 countries not wanting to spend more money on another bid.
Maybe Norway and Finland could bid together and have 2 joint bids?
I don't think that's why it failed. It failed because the ExCo preferred Switzerland. If Switzerland hadn't bid Nordics would have almost certainly won!
In that case, what is your explanation for two countries being dropped?
Logistical reasons, those 2 countries not wanting to spend more money on another bid.
Maybe Norway and Finland could bid together and have 2 joint bids?
Let’s just assume that you are are right, why does Nor & Fin not wanting to spend more money “unfair”.
Jackson Harrison wrote: ↑Mon Feb 12, 2024 20:21
…
Oh that's abiT unfair leaving out! …
Under your theory, they didn’t want in, no one left them out.
Back to reality.
Why do you think that bidding on there own will cost less money? (if their reason for fulling out was not wanting to spend money).
Given that money is not “Logistical reasons” how is this different than “a four-country bid is quite unlikely to win as the tournament is too spread out.”? (An actual logistical reason).
In that case, what is your explanation for two countries being dropped?
Logistical reasons, those 2 countries not wanting to spend more money on another bid.
Maybe Norway and Finland could bid together and have 2 joint bids?
Let’s just assume that you are are right, why does Nor & Fin not wanting to spend more money “unfair”.
Jackson Harrison wrote: ↑Mon Feb 12, 2024 20:21
…
Oh that's abiT unfair leaving out! …
Under your theory, they didn’t want in, no one left them out.
Back to reality.
Why do you think that bidding on there own will cost less money? (if their reason for fulling out was not wanting to spend money).
Given that money is not “Logistical reasons” how is this different than “a four-country bid is quite unlikely to win as the tournament is too spread out.”? (An actual logistical reason).
I meant wasted money.
So just Denmark and Sweden decided to go behind Norway and Finland's backs? Or did the others say they didn't wank to bid?
Jackson Harrison wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 11:11
Logistical reasons, those 2 countries not wanting to spend more money on another bid.
Maybe Norway and Finland could bid together and have 2 joint bids?
Let’s just assume that you are are right, why does Nor & Fin not wanting to spend more money “unfair”.
Jackson Harrison wrote: ↑Mon Feb 12, 2024 20:21
…
Oh that's abiT unfair leaving out! …
Under your theory, they didn’t want in, no one left them out.
Back to reality.
Why do you think that bidding on there own will cost less money? (if their reason for fulling out was not wanting to spend money).
Given that money is not “Logistical reasons” how is this different than “a four-country bid is quite unlikely to win as the tournament is too spread out.”? (An actual logistical reason).
I meant wasted money.
So just Denmark and Sweden decided to go behind Norway and Finland's backs? Or did the others say they didn't wank to bid?
You are the one that claimed that “unfair leaving out!” with no factual basis when there are many other more logical possibilities (you yourself are bringing up some of them).
Let’s just assume that you are are right, why does Nor & Fin not wanting to spend more money “unfair”.
Under your theory, they didn’t want in, no one left them out.
Back to reality.
Why do you think that bidding on there own will cost less money? (if their reason for fulling out was not wanting to spend money).
Given that money is not “Logistical reasons” how is this different than “a four-country bid is quite unlikely to win as the tournament is too spread out.”? (An actual logistical reason).
I meant wasted money.
So just Denmark and Sweden decided to go behind Norway and Finland's backs? Or did the others say they didn't wank to bid?
You are the one that claimed that “unfair leaving out!” with no factual basis when there are many other more logical possibilities (you yourself are bringing up some of them).
The tournament being spread out wouldn't really be an issue as each group would be played in one country and only runners-up would travel for quarter finals.
So just Denmark and Sweden decided to go behind Norway and Finland's backs? Or did the others say they didn't wank to bid?
You are the one that claimed that “unfair leaving out!” with no factual basis when there are many other more logical possibilities (you yourself are bringing up some of them).
The tournament being spread out wouldn't really be an issue as each group would be played in one country and only runners-up would travel for quarter finals.
What does this have to do with your “unfair leaving out!” claim?
out!