retired_sedimohasel

Where did I say it was harming football?
I actually think the opposite, I think a Swedish team winning its league every year and getting to the CL qualif every year is the way to improve both this team and the Swedish league overall. Lets say this team win its league 6 years in a row, they get knocked out of the qualif round the first 3 years and play the UEFA Cup, get some experience and get a little better every year then the follwing 3 years they get to the group stage and get a piece of the money that the CL generates, then they'll get to the KO stage and so on and so on. Plus by getting better every year this team will improve its overall league hence getting more places through the UEFA coefficients.

retired_sedimohasel

That's where I disagree, I think the competition should be about getting the best 32 teams together and find out which one is the best among the bests.

retired_sedimohasel

I do get the point, I just disagree with it

retired_anneduck

By the way, under the proposals, if formally accepted Platini has actually got what he wanted to an extent anyway, as there'll be a minimum of 18 champions in each group stage, which was the whole point in the first place:

Champions 1-12 qualify automatically
13-52 play qualifiers for 6 places

If the winners qualify automatically that would mean a guaranteed 19 champion teams in the Champions League, which would be fantastic, even with 9 teams qualifying from the top 3 leagues. With that the loss of a place for the cup winners isn't the end of the world.

retired_ashc21

How long are you going to keep insisting with this madness? The 10 "best" candidates who happen to be English in your analogy are "better" only because they were "spoiled" by their "parents".

Keep giving rich countries' clubs a lot of spots, and they'll make stupidly more money. So whenever they face a Czech or Turkish club they win 7-0. Hahahah that's so funny and nice to watch! I, for instance, haven't watched a CL match since the last year's final (which wasn't that fun anyway), despite having access to virtually every match.

retired_anneduck

That's where I disagree, I think the competition should be about getting the best 32 teams together and find out which one is the best among the bests. </BLOCKQUOTE>

If you define the best as our current ranked top 32 then we'll have very small geographical diversity

The good news is it actually looks quite possible that we'll have separate qualifying rounds for champions and non-champions under the new system. All that's changed against Platini is that it's the next highest league team, rather than cup-winners going down the non-champions qualifying route.

retired_sedimohasel

Seedings also include 33% of the countries coefficient, which is normally 20.000+ for the top three, so no it's not a level playing field from day one. </BLOCKQUOTE>

And we get this numbers by dividing the points every team from one nation got divided by the number of teams playing in Europe from that nation so if a coefficient is higher for one league than another it is well deserved.

[QUOTE} They are? I must have missed Chievo, Osasuna, Real Sociedad, Celta Vigo and Everton over recent years then. None are anywhere near the top 32 in the rankings and two are in the Segunda These teams are being rewarded for mediocrity in their leagues.[/QUOTE}

Yes they were in the top 32 that year. I never said that the top 32 sides should remain the same every year.
Plus this examples proves my point, if Chievo, Osasuna and Real Sociedad could be in the top and are nowadays far from it it means that other teams took their position.

I didn't say "rich" or "famous" ONCE in my reasoning. I said that the "best" should be in and I don't mean best on paper I mean best on the field and as long as the smaller teams keep getting kicked out in the qualif round or group stage it proves that they are not good enough, hence not the best.
Over the past few years 3 teams from Spain/England/Italy all made it to the semi-final the same year, it even happened more than once for Spain which proves that the 3rd team in the big leagues is much better than the champion of a small nation.

retired_ashc21

Yeah, they'll be lucky to get some scraps in a year, then they manage to sign some South American / African / whatever, since that seems to be the whole point of European football recently, and manage to reach, in a total fluke, the 1st knockout stage. They will then get hammered, have all of their half-decent players poached, and return to the starting point, since Manchester United will have made nearly a thousand times more income than this club.

retired_sedimohasel

How long are you going to keep insisting with this madness? The 10 "best" candidates who happen to be English in your analogy are "better" only because they were "spoiled" by their "parents".
</BLOCKQUOTE>

And their "parents" worked hard over the years to get these teams where they are today.
Anyway, I don't care how they got better the point is that they are today.
Should we automatically give half of the Brazilian players to Peru for the next WC because the Brazilian players were "spoiled" by their "parents"?

retired_anneduck

How long are you going to keep insisting with this madness? The 10 "best" candidates who happen to be English in your analogy are "better" only because they were "spoiled" by their "parents".

Keep giving rich countries' clubs a lot of spots, and they'll make stupidly more money. So whenever they face a Czech or Turkish club they win 7-0. Hahahah that's so funny and nice to watch! I, for instance, haven't watched a CL match since the last year's final (which wasn't that fun anyway), despite having access to virtually every match. </BLOCKQUOTE>

Pretty much sums it up exactly, the only reason they are the 'best' 32 is because they have access to so much more money than the other teams.

If you get every team seeded straight away, rather than having to start from scratch, then it's a lot more difficult to mess up. By the way Russia are most likely to overtake Germany this year, do you think that's deserved?