Forum

xml	No replies possible in the archive

Author: Danielos
Date: 10-10-2005, 11:10

I think the creation of a group stage in the UEFA Cup was an excellent idea to enhance the status of the tournament and make it more similar to CL. But I?m not so fond of this single match-system. I want the teams to meet both home and away, making it more fair and more matches.

My suggestion:

40 teams qualify from UC1
10 groups consisting of 4 teams each (seeded pot 1-4)

2 teams for each group qualify for next round (20 teams)
the four best 3rd placed teams qualify as well
the eight 3rd placed teams from CL enter next round

32 teams qualify for round 3

6 matches home and away instead of 5 rounds where one teams rests would not be that hard to squeeze in during this part of the year.

Author: Nick
Date: 10-10-2005, 11:57

Danielos: The real way to enhance the UEFA Cup is a bit different. No teams from the CL at all. Neither after QR3, nor after the GS!

Then you have R1 with 64 teams. The 32 winners make a full GS like the CL (8 groups with 4 teams both home and away). This GS can last unlit march! 16 teams qualify for the following KO rounds!

This way you have a full blown competition and you make sure that everybody will take it absolutely seriously because you know from the very beginning your opponents and there are no "relegated" CL teams that drop in from time to time in the middle of the tournament.

Author: Danielos
Date: 10-10-2005, 12:26

Nick: I disagree. Teams entering from CL are usually of high quality, ensuring a better UEFA Cup. As CL is clearly a much tougher tournament, I think it is only fair to allow QR3-teams into UCR1 (for example 2005-2006: Shaktar Donetsk, Monaco) and third placed teams in CL Group Stage into UCR3. Maybe it could work in both ways though. Teams winning UEFA Groups enter CL-knock-outs, and exchange places in UEFA Cup with the 3rd placed teams. But that would also make UEFA Cup weaker.

Author: ignjat63
Date: 10-10-2005, 12:44

I agree with Nick.

Starting idea of Cl and UEFA cup is that teams deserve to compete in them through their domestic championships or cups. If a team starts in one of those competitions it should end in the same competition.

If you want to introduce "it makes the competition more interesting" criterium then go all the way - why not let rejects from EVERY CL stage join UEFA cup. It can't get more interesting than that.

Regards

Author: Nick
Date: 10-10-2005, 12:55
Edited by: Nick
at: 10-10-2005, 12:59

Currently the UEFA Cup has one main problem: It has no real face. It's a complete joke thet in october you still don't know who will participate in this tournament. And i never liked this "second chance" idea. It gives the UEFA Cup a sort of "Loosers cup" image. I agree there are some quality teams that will join in february and some that joined in september but IMHO it's not all about pure quality. One should have clear rules from the very beginning. It's not acceptable for me that some teams start the competition in it's second half!
Actually the best idea would be to reform both tournaments. CL is all about money right now. If you don't allow all those 3rd and 4th placed teams in there the UEFA Cup will gain much more quality and will also generate much more money because more attractive teams will be in this tournament. In the same time the CL may again gain the right to be called "CHAMPION'S League". In it's current form it's clearly not a league of champions

Author: Ricardo
Date: 10-10-2005, 13:44

I would prefer to have CL-Q3 promoted to CL-R1, that then will be held at the same time as UC-R1 (NOT both in Q3, as real points should be awarded! After that UC groupstage can be 12 groups of 4, first 2 qualify for next round. Though I must admit I do not dislike the current groupings.
To put it in numbers:
CL-R1: 64 teams knock-out (out is out, no UC. No direct qualification to GS!)
CL-GS: 32 teams 8x4 1&2 next round, 3 ->UC
CL-R3: 16 teams
.... like it is now

UC-R1: 96 teams knock out
UC-GS: 48 teams 12x4 1& 2 next round
UC-R3: 32 teams
... like it is now

Re: UEFA Cup format
Author: Nick Date: 10-10-2005, 15:23	I like your format Ricardo. 64 teams would mean no 3rd, 4th placed teams anymore.

Re: UEFA Cup format
Author: Giuseppe Date: 10-10-2005, 17:50 Edited by: Giuseppe at: 10-10-2005, 17:53	This system would benefit some, but it will surely disatavantage others. But it's interesting to think that the Serie A champion might have to battle the champion of Ukraine (for example) in order to reach the Group Stage. Still, I doubt that UEFA will drop the current system which gives direct qualification to so many big clubs.

Re: UEFA Cup format
Author: ignjat63 Date: 11-10-2005, 06:18	Actually, Nick, Ricardo does suggest 3rd placed teams to be transfered from CL into UC. But it is a very realistic suggestion. It would be an improvement.I do not like these transfers either but 8 clubs are not a lot.

Re: UEFA Cup format
Author: Nick Date: 11-10-2005, 07:34	Actually even the G14 shouldn't be opposing such a reform too much. Of course some of the G14 clubs may miss the CL but the UEFA Cup will generate much more money that now, so the loss wouldn't be that big. And the other UEFA Cup teams will benefit too if they have the opportunity to play the very big guns on a regular basis.

Re: UEFA Cup format
Author: Danielos Date: 11-10-2005, 10:55	But isn?t the point of the UEFA Cup that it is a tournament for the clubs that are just below "the big guns"? Here many smaller clubs have a chance for a European adventure against quality opposition. If many of the biggest clubs played in UEFA Cup, it would be a better tournament but it would be more difficult for the smaller clubs and would lose a bit of it?s "charm".

Author: ignjat63
Date: 11-10-2005, 11:13

Probably the key question (for me anyway) is how many teams from one country should be allowed in CL. I think no more than 2 (or 1 plus the TH). If 3rd or 4th placed teams are allowed in CL than it should not be called "Champions'". So if those teams played in UEFA instead of CL (as they should) it would improve the UC quality.

By the way all new clubs in CL or UEFA should start with 0 points. I really think that 33% rule should be abolished.

Author: Nick
Date: 11-10-2005, 11:46

Danielos: Just think about it. With the current formats of both competitions a team from Moldova or Ireland (i just took those 2 countries for example - same is valid for at least 15 other countries) will never have a chance to play against the likes of Real, Barca, Bayern or Milan. I know the "big guns" don't want to play against teams like BATE Borisov, but this was the charm of the Eurocups for many years that every small team can hope to at least see the big stars. The fans in these countries will never have the opportunity to see such teams live.

Author: Danielos
Date: 11-10-2005, 12:28

Nick: I don?t really understand what you mean. The best teams from Moldavia and Ireland still has a chance to meet the big clubs since they participate in CL qualification rounds as all other nations. Look for example at Artmedia, an "insignificant" Slovakian club going all the way from QR1 to CL GS and now meeting Inter, Porto and Glasgow Rangers.

If they want to meet the big clubs they have to qualify for CL. But the UEFA Cup should in my view be for the medium-sized clubs (for example, Danish Bröndby) in Europe. Here they can have a European adventure without being humiliated by the likes of Chelsea and Juventus, that does not play in the same league either economically or sportsly.

Author: Forza-AZ
Date: 11-10-2005, 12:50

My suggestion:

40 teams qualify from UC1
10 groups consisting of 4 teams each (seeded pot 1-4)

2 teams for each group qualify for next round (20 teams)
the four best 3rd placed teams qualify as well
the eight 3rd placed teams from CL enter next round

Some best placed 3rd placed teams letting qualify for the next round is not a good idea I think. That gives a lot of confusion in the last match round (and you have to let all the groups play the same day, while now the last matchday is split in 2 days).
So an idea would be to make 12 groups of 4, with the top 2 qualify. Then you also can go back to 96 teams in round 1 like it was untill 2 years ago.
That does mean that every team has to play 8 matches before half December in stead of 6, but there are still 2 dates available. Every team now has a free matchday in the groups and there is a week with only CL-football. As a consequense you will have 4 weeks in a row with UEFA-cup football, so the teams will get a extremely crowded schedule in November-December.

Author: exile
Date: 11-10-2005, 12:55

Without the UC to fall back on, teams that lose in EC QR3 would be
very harshly treated. This would generally include teams outside the "magic circle" of big clubs, the likes of Basel, Partizan,
Steaua, Malmo, CSKA Sofia, Valerengen and so on,
and the gap with the big clubs would increase further.

I would be happy to abolish the "repechage" but only if the CL was reformed as well. Which is not going to happen.

Re: UEFA Cup format
Author: Danielos Date: 11-10-2005, 12:56 Edited by: Danielos at: 11-10-2005, 12:58	All this talk about the UEFA Cup makes me wish the damned group stage could start soon!

Author: ignjat63
Date: 11-10-2005, 12:59

Danielos, you may be right considering the system as it is now. But some of us believe the system is wrong at its roots and that it should be changed.

This is why i think the system is wrong. In fact it is rather simple. The football clubs should not be more than that. And the present system makes them more than that. It is not "normall" that for example Real byes Beckam just because he sells shirts in the far East. And the amount of money Abramovich pumps in is also abnormaly high (though I strongly defend him within the present system - he behaves normaly in a not-normal system). The number of clubs that are becoming money making enterprizes and are not just football clubs is growing. And people like me believe that it is destroying football even in the big countries.

One way to fight it is to decrease the number of teams in CL allowed from the top countries, decreasing amount of money in CL and increasing the amount of money in UC. The UC is now more like a dumping ground for all the losers than a cup that should have its dignity. And that should be changed too.

Re: UEFA Cup format
Author: Danielos Date: 11-10-2005, 13:12	Maybe a way to make it more fair to small clubs is to totally abandon the seeding system for the clubs. That way, small clubs would not always meet big clubs and never qualify, and many big clubs would be thrown out of the competition (or play in UEFA Cup). The seeding system is maybe theoretically fair, but in practice it help to secure the position of the big clubs far into the big tournaments.

Re: UEFA Cup format
Author: ignjat63 Date: 11-10-2005, 13:18	That is a good suggestion. The clubs are too protected every step of the way. Three qualification rounds in CL, seeding system and the direct participation of 16 teams in CL group stage practically ensure that all the top teams are there. And it is important to note that teams like Artmedia are just exceptions and not arguments for the opposite.

Author: Kananga
Date: 11-10-2005, 13:27
Edited by: Kananga
at: 11-10-2005, 13:31

Nick makes the great point that the UC has a "losers cup" image. I'm not a fan either of the 8 CL teams or the fair play tickets - they might draft in some extra quality, but it continually chips away the integrity of this competition in my opinion.

I've no problem with the UC trying to mirror the CL. It has done in the past with all the KO rounds - and will probably need to do more so in the future to try and bridge the financial disparity between the two competitions.

It's needs to establish itself as the clear second division UEFA tournament - enough quality, enough money & many incentives to compete. Right now, it's slipping down the priority list for some clubs because their league championships give much greater financial rewards - way beyond what the UC can generate.

I like the idea of the 64 starters and the CL-style groups and knowing that the winner will come from 1 of the 64. The group stages have to strike the balance between having enough good, competitive, commercially attractive matches and not becoming too bloated in my opinion.

Maybe Nick's idea of the 8*4 or having a fewer number of groups later in the tournament? If the competition also has that 64 set in stone & a genuinely competitive group stage along the way, it may become easier to market it and attract a wider range of sponsors & TV money.

I agree there also needs to be a rebalancing of the entrants list from each country like ignjat says, but the G14 might be hard to budge

Re Danielos: "The best teams from Moldavia and Ireland still has a chance to meet the big clubs since they participate in CL qualification rounds as all other nations"

They still have a chance, but as the years have passed more hurdles and obstacles have been put in their way

It's much harder for them to break the door open and get some really giant matches. Artmedia's achievment is all the greater because of this.

Author: Danielos
Date: 11-10-2005, 14:45

If Champions League was only for the European champions, and runners-up, 3rd and 4th placed teams from the big nations ended up in UEFA Cup it would mean that the UEFA Cup would end up being a stronger tournament than CL, and clearly that should not be the case. But if all teams had to qualify for CL GS (no direct qualification), and no seeding occured, it would be more surprises along the way, and more clubs like Artmedia in CL GS and more clubs like Arsenal and Inter in UEFA Cup.

Author: Ricardo
Date: 11-10-2005, 15:26

What about this:
Don't do the Q3, but start immediatly with the groupphase with 48 teams 8 groups of 6. There will be 10 matchdays,compared to current 8, so that's something we will have to solve, but then more teams will play in the CL! At the same time as the Q3 the UC can start with a groupphase of 24 groups of 4, with 2 teams qualifying for next round.
In numbers:
CL-R1: 48 teams, 10 matchdays 8 groups of 6.
CL-R2: 16 teams(1&2 gs), knock out
... (like current)

UC-R1: 96 teams, 6 matchdays, 24 groups of 4
UC-R2: 48 teams(1&2 gs), knock-out
UC-R3: 32 teams(winners+nr3 CL-gs)
UC-R4: 16 teams knock-out
....(like current)

Benefits:
* more teams in CL
* more teams play more games
* no real loss to current top teams, so they won't complain!
* CL plays more matches, so gather more points for coefficient
* nr3 CL to UC to keep CL interesting in last matchdays

Re: UEFA Cup format
Author: Danielos Date: 11-10-2005, 15:43	Ricardo: I like your suggestion a lot! Send it to UEFA immediately!

Author: ignjat63
Date: 12-10-2005, 07:21

There was this other topic about Roman Abramovich making english football public losing interest in EPL because, as the argument went, he "bought the title". I think that if english football fans are really starting to lose interest in EPL it has to be partly because of the effect CL has on domestic championships of the top countries (it's not just Roman).

There is this sort of vicious circle. Top english clubs are playing CL every season which makes them much richer than other EPL teams, and that further ensures their dominance in EPL. That means that Arsenal, Man Utd and Chelsea are going to be top 3 in EPL in the future (a decade? 2 decades?). And in Italy likewise - it will be Juventus or Milan (in Seria A) for the next 20 years if nothing is changed. So G14 are dominating not only Euro-cups but also their domestic championship (or maybe I am wrong?). So G14 gets it all really.

So, in EPL, no chance for a new Nottingham Forest, Aston Villa or Blackburn Rovers. It's so fucking boooooring (I am starting to lose interest too). And it will be even more so in the future.

That is why I suggested not only reducing number of teams from one country to maximum 2 teams but also decreasing amount of money in CL (and transfering it to UEFA cup). I think it is much more important then just changing the format of Euro-cups (though I really like the first Ricardo's suggestion).

I took EPL as an example only. It is the same in Italy and Spain too. And if things are not changed soon all this money (and power that goes with it) concentration in few teams will really start to make fans losing interest as it is starting to happen in EPL.

One final thing. CL is not (or rather it should not be) about top dogs. Euro-cups are not jungle or savanna. CL is about the champions of UEFA members and they should have much more equal treatment.

Author: MalcolmW
Date: 12-10-2005, 09:05

The European Champions League is not a league, it is not for champions, and it's not even European. It is just a name for a competition.
The 'old' UEFA Cup overtook the ECWC for prestige because it was clearly a tougher competition.
The introduction of the group stage of the current UEFA Cup format was a good step, but groups of 5 are wholly unsatisfactory. The fact that 20% of teams sit out a fixture date is a problem and the system of playing each team either home OR away but not both is not seen to be fair.
12 groups of 4 playing home AND away would be a real improvement and can be achieved with minimal changes. I may not like transfers from CL, but I can see that G14 will not yield on this for its own members' interests.
I do NOT like the concept of 'best third placers' as this never works satisfactorily and depends on the strengths/weaknesses within the groups.
I do not believe that the CL entries from major leagues should be reduced, and find it interesting that so many want to cut this but at the same time seek status quo in WCT representatiom for Europe as opposed to Africa, etc....

Re: UEFA Cup format
Author: Ricardo Date: 12-10-2005, 10:00 Edited by: Ricardo at: 12-10-2005, 10:01	Malcolm, I like your last sentence. I agree with the second part completely. ( I don't mind that there are this many teams of Asia and Africa on the WC. Actualy I am very interested in the new African oppononents. I expect something from them....)