Champions League / UEFA Cup revamped from 2009

kwchannell89 · 11-13-2007, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Meitheisman:

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.

and the smaller teams being knocked out every year has nothing to with the fact the richer clubs buy their best players? what you are proposing would see only the rich clubs in the champions league.
ffs your sounding like berlusconi. and anyway the best teams dont always play teh best football, up until grant took over at chelsea, they were one of the best teams, but were dire to watch. juventus were one of the best teams, but tbh i always prefered to watch serie d teams, because at least they had commitment.
"best 32" teams dont always play the most entertaining football.

retired_ashc21 · 11-13-2007, 10:08 PM

Quote:

And? Tough luck but that's capitalism guys, once you have more money you can do more with it. It appplies to people, corporations and football teams and I see nothing wrong with it.

That should be football, and not just a damn business, it's a sport, its regulations should be (and are, to an extent) WAY different of those that apply to business and regular jobs.

As it is now, clubs are rewarded by just standing on top of English soil, while the, say, Swedish ones are never going to make it unless some Abramovich wants them to. Football is meant for the fans to have fun with, not to be a "capitalist" struggle. Leave that for the enterprises.

retired_sedimohasel · 11-13-2007, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Richie P:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by Kill Rock Stars:
yeah, it's insane to assume that all a team from sweden have to do is win their league every year and keep trying and eventually they'll just magically get better

could just reward them with a fair shot at the group stages every year, but clearly that would be terribly unfair to top teams like celta vigo and chievo

Yep, lets give Chievo or Osasuna another shot instead of letting much bigger traditional clubs with huge fanbases like Red Star or Partizan have a fair chance. </BLOCKQUOTE>

Chievo went through the qualif to get in the CL, just like Partizan. Is it my fault if they don't make it? No, it's because they lost on the pitch.

Quote:

The fact that some teams are richer than others has nothing to do with the CL and it is not for the CL to fix.

A quick glance at how the Cl income is distributed every year shows how daft that statement is. Porto can wi the Cl every year, they still won't make as much money as United losing in the last 16[/QUOTE]

What I meant is that the CL is not the biggest influence on clubs income. Plenty of factors are at least as important if not more:
- How rich the country is
- The TV rights from the League
- The size of the fanbase
- The average revenue of the fanbase
- Taxes in their country
...

retired_sedimohasel · 11-13-2007, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Richie P:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by Meitheisman:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by Kill Rock Stars:
yeah, it's insane to assume that all a team from sweden have to do is win their league every year and keep trying and eventually they'll just magically get better

could just reward them with a fair shot at the group stages every year, but clearly that would be terribly unfair to top teams like celta vigo and chievo

When did Vigo or Chievo got automatically to the group stage?
They had to qualify, just like the Swedish champion. </BLOCKQUOTE>
With 33% country coefficient, straight through to the final qualifying round and Chievo still managed to get battered by Levski in the qualifiers </BLOCKQUOTE>

And? That's perfectly fine by me, it gave Levski a chance to play in the group stage and they deserved it on the pitch.

retired_anneduck · 11-13-2007, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Meitheisman:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by Richie P:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by Meitheisman:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by Kill Rock Stars:
yeah, it's insane to assume that all a team from sweden have to do is win their league every year and keep trying and eventually they'll just magically get better

could just reward them with a fair shot at the group stages every year, but clearly that would be terribly unfair to top teams like celta vigo and chievo

When did Vigo or Chievo got automatically to the group stage?
They had to qualify, just like the Swedish champion. </BLOCKQUOTE>
With 33% country coefficient, straight through to the final qualifying round and Chievo still managed to get battered by Levski in the qualifiers </BLOCKQUOTE>

And? That's perfectly fine by me, it gave Levski a chance to play in the group stage and they deserved it on the pitch. </BLOCKQUOTE>

Great, they disposed of the mediocre fourth placed team after being ranked 22nd in the country rankings, imagine how good these teams could be if they were given more opportunity to qualify instead of playing Arsenal or Valencia in the qualifiers?

retired_jdupont · 11-13-2007, 10:18 PM

Quote:

We might aswell make the big teams franchises of UEFA.

Something like this:

- Arsenal
- Barcelona
- Bayern
- Chelsea
- Internazionale
- Juventus
- Liverpool
- Lyon
- Man Utd
- Milan
- Real Madrid
- Werder

They play against each other twice (22 games) and the top 4 qualify for the playoffs. The semis are played over two legs and the final is played in neutral ground (maybe in Asia).

retired_ashc21 · 11-13-2007, 10:22 PM

I miss the old foreigner-restricted days. Money was important back then, but alone couldn't drive you all the way to the top, like it does now.

retired_sedimohasel · 11-13-2007, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by irish2101:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by Meitheisman:

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.

and the smaller teams being knocked out every year has nothing to with the fact the richer clubs buy their best players? what you are proposing would see only the rich clubs in the champions league.
ffs your sounding like berlusconi. and anyway the best teams dont always play teh best football, up until grant took over at chelsea, they were one of the best teams, but were dire to watch. juventus were one of the best teams, but tbh i always prefered to watch serie d teams, because at least they had commitment.
"best 32" teams dont always play the most entertaining football. </BLOCKQUOTE>

The richer clubs buy the small teams players, yes. And? Complain to Mr. Bosman or the European Union court, they started that, not the UEFA or CL and I don't think this is the CL/UEFA role to get involved in this. This is politics and thank god we are in a capitalistic democratie so if a company wants to hire someone from another company by paying him more I'm all for it. This someone could be you and I or a football player it makes no difference to the theory.

retired_ashc21 · 11-13-2007, 10:24 PM

Quote:

played in neutral ground (maybe in Asia).

It would fit them perfectly tbh

retired_sedimohasel · 11-13-2007, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by masteR+_+:
<BLOCKQUOTE>And? Tough luck but that's capitalism guys, once you have more money you can do more with it. It appplies to people, corporations and football teams and I see nothing wrong with it.

That should be football, and not just a damn business, it's a sport, its regulations should be (and are, to an extent) WAY different of those that apply to business and regular jobs.

As it is now, clubs are rewarded by just standing on top of English soil, while the, say, Swedish ones are never going to make it unless some Abramovich wants them to. Football is meant for the fans to have fun with, not to be a "capitalist" struggle. Leave that for the enterprises. </BLOCKQUOTE>

There's no way football is going back to amateurism and until it does money will be part of it.

Champions League / UEFA Cup revamped from 2009

Grab a beer, sit back and relax.

Champions League / UEFA Cup revamped from 2009