Eight groups of three teams each would produce a second round of eight (or 16) qualifiers. The 24-teams idea is not made more attractive by that notion, of course.

Was it just me or did anyone else notice that Spain, Holland and Croatia all fielded weakened teams in the final group games- then Holland and Croatia failed to get going in the quarter-finals. This is rather like the Champions League when Man Utd qualify top after game 4 or 5 of 6 they field the likes of Chris Eagles and Darren Fletcher in the final games. The paying punter deserves better.

is it me or do you guys to stick the knife into Scotland at every oppurtunity? why the constant jibes at darren flether? he might not be a man untd class player but he's still a good player. why no mention of the fact that expandin it 24 teams is beneficial to England as well?

Because nobody expects England to qualify even if 24 teams can?

I'm not sure that's true G.Man. Surely even England couldn't fail to be in the top 24 could they?
Oh...

It's a good point though. What's the point of a finals if it's not teams of at least a certain quality. A quality that eludes England (and yes, Scotland) right now.

a country the size of England should qualify for a last 8, never mind the final 24! Again, if teams of the likes of Greece, Austria, Switzerland, Romania, Sweeden and Poland are better than Scotland or England then theres something wrong with the system. Its pure luck of the draw, as Scotland found to our expense. If Uefa are finding back door ways to let the likes of Poland and Ukraine, Switzerland and Austria enter the competition then whats wrong with Scotland, or anyone else, bringin the issue up?

ps we drew with Crotia recently, , should've beat the Czech republic with half a team an i would but a bet on Scotland beating England next time they play, so stop sneering, your not as good as you think you are.

sorry if it seems iv got a bit of a chip on my shoulder! but you know, people in glass houses shouldnt throw stones.

"Should have, could have, would have" is irrelevant. If qualification for, and winning, major international tournaments were based on population, China would win everything hands down.

The reason why England don't/won't qualify for/win major tournaments is because the people who run our game at the highest level know nothing (and I mean, NOTHING) about football. Michel Platini was head honcho in the French FA before he got the Uefa call; Karl-Heinz Rumminege is Germany's top man.

So who have England got making the major decisions? Brian fatarse Barwick is who. Scotland? Gordon "Who the f*** are you" Smith. Ireland? Wales? Who gives a stuff: certainly no-one who ever played even at club level.

The Sweet FA promised a root-and-branch review of the game after MacLaren got the heave-ho. What is needed is deforestation.

The old 'teams must play at least 3 games in a tournament because the players & fans spent 6 weeks on a boat to get there' argument is surely irrelevant in Europe. As mentioned half the last group games at Euro 08 were meaningless anyway.

So 8 X groups of 3 works for me - then quickly into the knock out rounds where all the excitement is anyway.

It would only add a couple of days to the tournament if 2 qualifiers from each group and shorten it if 1.