Forum

xml	No replies possible in the archive

Author: alexdcro
Date: 14-05-2006, 00:25

Ok so I guess UEFA is considering some major changes in
the european competition's format. I guess there are many
users here that dislike something about the competitions.

So what's the best format?? Well i guess UEFA will give us
the answer.

What is your opinion? I don't now.

Mine?

Uefa Champions League
1) It's a league then so be it.
2) It's for champions so be it.

So a european league with 26 (or less or more) teams. No. 1
is the best. Because to many games should be played i think
that the current format for uefa's groups could be use (one home
one away) so 25 games for all. There should be 1 or 2 qualyifing
rounds. And the teams qualified for this competition should be
no 1 for all countries, no 2 for a part (based on the coefficient)
and the last year winner.

Ok so the ideal solution would be only champions but don't think that's
gonna happend any time in the future so...

The advantages:
1) All teams are playing more games
2) Only some real good teams qualify

UEFA Cup
1) It's a cup then so be it.

A pure european cup. Teams ranked 3-4 and cup winners again the number of teams
is based on coefficients.

INTERTOTO
1) Regional Cup

The best place for lower teams to play some european games. This
competition isn't very interesting nowadays because winning it means a place
in a lower round in uefa. A regional cup is more interesting. All countries
sould have a large number of teams in this competition (like 4-6). And whan I
say all mean it: Spain, England, Holand, Russia, Romania, Ireland, Andorra,
Kazahstan, etc. They all nead a chance to progress. You get the chance to play against
teams in your country and your neighbours countries. I think that the interest
will be greater. Rhere will be either x Intertoto winners (1 for each region)
or 1 (region winners enter a cup tournament to establish a winner).

Re: UEFA Competitions - redesign from scratch?
Author: STK Date: 14-05-2006, 01:11	How about 4 big CL groups with 9 teams each (8 games, 4 away, 4 home), winners play the semifinals; simple and efficient.

Author: badgerboy
Date: 15-05-2006, 17:46

9x4 = 36 teams.

Good number but I still prefer 6x6 = 36 teams and then the knockout rounds retained as now. I also dislike teams playing each other only once - home or away. If you were going to do that though I'd say - why bother with two groups. Have an odd number of teams (17 or 19) with everybody playing everybody once - then a final (or semi-finals and final).

Too large groups will lead to too many dead matches. The same problem with any league set up. Six per group is just about Ok if the top four have something to play for (UEFA Cup or - my preference - the extra play-off round to make the last 16).

Author: alexdcro
Date: 15-05-2006, 23:32

@badgerboy

Why do you say that to large groups implies too many dead games. If so than all leagues should be changed into group stage + knock out rounds. A league might have some not so interesting games but is not at all so boring not to consider the ideea.

And yes it was my mistake 26 is not a good ideea because than some teams will play 13 games home and others 12.

I like to the ideea of both home and away matches but is imposible to force the teams to play another 38 games (for example).

Why would I prefer the ideea of Champions Leagues beeing a league is for giving all teams the chance off playing many games and eliminating both the need of seeding and CL loosers migration to UEFA.

Author: badgerboy
Date: 16-05-2006, 10:24

Alexdcro said

"Why do you say that to large groups implies too many dead games. If so than all leagues should be changed into group stage + knock out rounds".

I'd answer this with two points. First, in the domestic leagues, teams are playing for up to eight European places (plus relegation issues) so it's not just the Championship that matters. The European League is the ultimate (apart from a World League!)so - if one team dominates (or even two or three)- what are the rest playing for. Second - perhaps more important. The domestic games have so much historic rivalry that the results often matter immensely to the fans, even if they are irrelevant to league positions. I don't think the same is so true of European games. Of course there is rivalry between certain countries but I think this comes to the fore more with national team games than international club matches. Arsenal fans want to beat Juventus and Real Madrid (and Barcelona) because it signifies progress (or an improved chance of progress) in European competition. If they were 6th playing 7th in a European league they both had no chance of winning few would care - in my opinion anyway.

I try not to repeat myself on here too much

but my proposed CL format does - I think - meet most of your stated objectives whilst retaining the excitement of the current knock out rounds. 36 teams in 6 groups of 6 - so a guaranteed 10 matches for all teams. The top two in each group progress automatically whilst the 6 third-placed teams and two best fourth placed teams play an additional knockout round to produce the other four qualifiers. No transfer to UEFA Cup after the qualifying rounds and at least 17 matches for the two-finalists (up to 21 if they had to qualify and play the extra knockout round).

Author: Agent327
Date: 16-05-2006, 11:12

I'm not a fan of groups with 6 teams and certainly not fond of the idea of 2 best fourth placed teams going through.

But if the format sticks I think it's better to extend it to 48 teams (more real champions!) divided in 8 groups of 6.
Numbers 1 progresses to next stage, number 2 & 3 play each other to add 8 teams into the next round

----And maybe no. 4 & 5 play against each other to decide who's going to the UC----

(With all these extra rounds it's looking like the Eredivisie in Holland with all their playoffs)

Greetz,
Agent327

Re: UEFA Competitions - redesign from scratch?
Author: Francisco Date: 16-05-2006, 13:31	@Agent327, You made a mistake If you're giving a spot in UEFA Cup to some team it should be the loser of 2nd x 3rd not to the 4th or 5th placed team

Re: UEFA Competitions - redesign from scratch?
Author: Forza-AZ Date: 16-05-2006, 16:27	You could let the losers of 2-3 play the winners of 4-5 for that spots.

Author: alexdcro
Date: 16-05-2006, 23:34

@badgerboy

Youre sistem works fine except for two things I don't really like:
1) 4 teams qualifing from a group is a little to much (the best exemple is the current 3 out of 5 in UEFA) even if an additional qualifing game is necesary to proceed further
2) best 2 placed fourth is not so objective. I guess you refer to the 2 teams with most points. Having a less competitive team in the group will advantage some. A tougher group will disadvantage others.

If it were for me to chouse a league + knockout format than I'll rather go for Agent327's proposal (8 groups x 6 teams; nr 1 go further, 2 vs 3 to add another 8 teams) but without migration to UEFA.

UEFA should be a competition independent from UCL.

Author: badgerboy
Date: 17-05-2006, 01:09

I guess one of the main ideas of the current 3 from 4 qualifying for something in the CL is to give teams who can't make the top two something to play for for longer.

I also dislike the transfer to the UEFA Cup at that point.

My system of top two only guaranteed to qualify but teams in 3rd (plus two fourth) leaves plenty of teams with something to play for. I'm also not a fan of "two best ... placed teams" qualifying methods but it's the lesser of many possible evils. I don't like the idea of a full league and for me 8 groups of 6, although tidier would dilute the strength of the competition and still leave the "dead match" problem. I personally think both these are a problem with the current set-up too (although I generally like that set up). Without the UEFA Cup qualification as a consolation there would be a fair few dead matches even with 8 groups of 4, 8 groups of 6 would be a shocker...

Author: Richie
Date: 17-05-2006, 06:10

Heres my post from a topic is started a while ago

"Started a topic like this one ages ago which got a good response and archived, so here we go:

-For the champions league:

Should teams who are not league champions automatically qualify? We all know theres not going to be any change back to an all-champion competition, but should a team who finish second go straight into the group stage?
Better idea: Top 15 ranked champions and holders qualify automatically - very fair, places more emphasis on becoming league champions, rather than settling for just qualifying for the champions league. Plus by and large, the top 15 champions are all good enough to play in the group stage anyway - fairer on teams outside the top few leagues and reignite interest and competition in many non-western leagues.
Also use goal difference for group stage, rather than head to head records to decide who goes through on points tie, avoiding more dead games in the last round, and less teams playing weakened teams.

Contraversial idea - Limit number of teams per country to 3, except for the holding country, who gain an extra place

-To improve the UEFA cup:

They really should stop third placed champions league teams coming into the UEFA cup, they've already played plenty of games, and dont deserve to be still in Europe after the winter break, so an extra 32 first round places, or 64 qualifying places to spread around, maybe more to give to the smaller countries, e.g one more place per country, and then distribute the others to those lower in the rankings, or upgrade some from qualifying round 2 to first round proper.

Could also stop the dodgy groupings in the first round and try to have as open a draw as possible, only grouping to stop teams from the same country playing each other before the fourth round

Also decrease the UEFA team coefficient contribution from countries further from 33% to at least 20%, if not lower, as it makes a mockery of seeding when a team such as Millwall are seeded in their first ever season in europe just because of the country coefficient

Does there really need to be a group stage?, the champions league works a lot better without a second group stage, which was obviously only there to benefit the bigger teams, and make sure they have a greater chance of reaching the knockout rounds. Straight knockout, or only a group stage for say the last 16, 4 groups, winners only through to the semis

Increase the number of teams competing, as in the big leagues more teams are playing CL, which is obviously taken more seriously, increase to 6 for big countries and 3-4 for other decent leagues to bring back prestige

-And most contraversial of all (sorry for such a long post) - Cup Winners Cup?

We've probably all noticed that interest in domestic cup competitions, even the FA cup, has significantly waned sinced the dissolution of the CWC in the UEFA one, especially for big teams, who, outside England, and who probably qualify for the CL anyway.
Bring it back with cup winners from each country, into a 12 or 24 team group stage, with qualifiers to get down to 48 teams.
E.g two knockout rounds then three groups, winners and best placed second place team qualify for semis, or use the 24 team, 6 groups system from the 98/99 champions league, such as with top 16 countries/15 with holder have their cup winners go straight into groups , and remainder play qualifiers for last 8 places. Having more than 6 groups would be pusihing it quality wise
The quality of teams is certainly there, and maybe we could begin to care about cup competitions again, and yes it would be a shock having only one team from each country, but its not exactly as if the big teams used to walk it anyway."

Author: Nick
Date: 17-05-2006, 07:11
Edited by: Nick
at: 17-05-2006, 07:13

Actually the main reason for all clubs wanting to play in the CL is prize money. Get more prize money in the UEFA Cup and nobody from the top clubs will complain if they miss the CL (reduced spots). Actually thet's exactly what UEFA is doing right now with the introduction of centralized marketing for the later stages of the UEFA Cup from this season on. In 2-3 years they will have prize money down to the group stage and will hape the option of making the CL a real champions competition without risking upset reactions from Top 5 clubs.
Finally I also think that the IT should be put to history and merged with the UEFA Cup. A tournament with 11 winners is a joke.

Re: UEFA Competitions - redesign from scratch?
Author: panda Date: 17-05-2006, 11:08	re: CWC I think in England the FA cup has generally been won recently by teams that have qualified for CL. Is the abolition of the CWC related to this sort of phenomenon - big club wants to play in CL. A revived CWC with plenty of cup LOSERS doesn't have the same ring to it.

Author: badgerboy
Date: 17-05-2006, 11:24

No, the Cup Winners Cup is dead and buried and should stay that way.

As for the Champions League. Whatever people think is the "ideal solution" I can't ever see direct access spots being taken away from the teams that have them now and given to more Champions. A Cup only for Champions is definitely defunct (unless room could be found for a straight one match knockout cup in addition to the other tournaments - and I don't think it can). The best "compromise" you could hope for is for the direct access spots for non-Champions to be removed so the 3rd (or last) qualifying round gets bigger. Only eight teams qualify direct (Champions of 1-7 and TH, or CH 1-8).

I'm happy to expand the UEFA Cup and take away the transfer of teams (after the qualifiers) though. I'd let all of the CL qualifying losers transfer, double the number of teams in (and qualifying from) the Intertoto - call them UEFA qualifying rounds if you want AND give an extra team to some of the mid-ranking associations. Ranks 9-16 get five - not four. Ranks 22-30 get four - not three. I think it works out to exactly 200 teams (I posted full details on another thread a while back). End up with 16 groups of 4 - top two to knockout round. Increases the number of games for a lot of clubs and still leaves the excitement of the knockout phase.

Re: UEFA Competitions - redesign from scratch?
Author: ignjat63 Date: 17-05-2006, 11:37	Badger, if only 15 champions and TH went into CL GS, i suppose most of the second placed teams will go through also as they will be seeded so it is not such a bad idea. And it seems to me that IT ceased being a cup and is turned into a UEFA cup qualification system. What with 11 teams qualifying it cant be taken seriously any more.

Author: MalcolmW
Date: 17-05-2006, 13:04

I think the CWC was dispensed with because it was by far the weakest of the 3 European competitions at that time. Furthermore a restriction of CL to domestic league champions (plus title holder) only would again considerably enhance the relative strength of UEFA Cup. With 2nd, 3rd and 4th from the top few leagues (plus cup winners) in the UEFA Cup, this would enlarge the number of teams challenging to win to far more than would be remaining in the CL.

Author: ferdi
Date: 17-05-2006, 13:59
Edited by: ferdi
at: 17-05-2006, 14:24

I suggest to give up the CL qualification and give direct access to the following 32 teams instead:

14 champions from countries 1-14
3 more teams each from countries 1-3
2 more teams each from countries 4-6
1 more team each from country 7-8
1 title holder
1 more champion from country 15 if title holder spot is not used

All other champions should play in the UEFA cup from the beginning.

This way there would only be teams in the CL competition which have at least a small chance to win it. (Thus no more Artmedia or Thun or whatever teams with a chance of approx 0 % to reach the 1/8 final)

The UEFA Cup would then become a competition where the smaller teams from the big countries as well as the best teams from the small countries would have their European competition - on a level where they have a chance to be competitive.

Author: badgerboy
Date: 17-05-2006, 14:43

Ferdi

I disagree. I think all Champions should at least have a chance of qualifying for the CL but I don't think they should get a free pass. The current set up is "OKish" by me - it's the balance between closing the door completely on the minnows (which you suggest) and kicking out some of the bigger clubs instead (which others would like).

I guess there will be always be a line between those who hark back to the "good old days" of a tournament purely for Champions and those who want to see a tournament with the best teams wherever they are from.

Why do I disagree with giving free group stage access to more Champions? Aside from issues of financial realities - keeping the big clubs happy etc. (which I'll leave aside despite their relevance) I'll go for some stats instead. I'll emphasise again this is all about wanting to see the strongest teams in the tournament

2005-06 Top 6 ranked country teams playing CLQR3.

Werder Bremen - 7 pts in GS (Lost to Juve in Last 16)
Inter-Milan - 13 pts in GS (Quarter-Finalists)
Man Utd - 6 pts in GS (4th)
Villarreal (bt Everton)- 10 pts in GS (Semi-Finalists)
Liverpool - 12 pts in GS (Lost to Benfica in Last 16)
Udinese (bt Sporting) - 7 pts in GS (3rd)
Real Betis (bt Monaco) - 7 pts in GS (3rd)

2005-06 Champions of countries 9 to 16

Sparta Prague - 2 pts in GS.
Fenerbahce - 4 pts in GS
Rangers - bt Anorthosis Famagusta and got 7 pts in GS. Last 16.
Brugge - bt Valerenga and got 7 pts in GS (6 vs Rapid Vienna)
Basle - lost to Werder Bremen (a top 6 team)
S. Donetsk - lost to Inter (another top 6 team)
Rosenberg - bt Steaua and got 4 pts in GS.
Wisla Krakow - lost to Panathinaikos who then got 4 pts in GS.

2004-05 Top 6 ranked country teams playing CLQR3.

Liverpool - 10 pts in GS - tournament winner.
Juventus - 16 pts in GS - Quarter-finalists.
Bayer Leverkusen - 11 pts in GS - Last 16.
Man Utd - 11 pts in GS - Last 16.
Inter-Milan - 14 pts in GS - Quarter-finals.
Deportivo - 2 pts in GS - 4th
Monaco - 12 pts in GS - Last 16
Real Madrid - 11 pts in GS
PAOK Salonika - lost to Maccabi Tel-Aviv.

2004-05 Champions of countries 9-16

Celtic - 5 pts in GS (4th).
Fenerbahce - 9 pts in GS (3rd).
Anderlecht - bt Benfica and then 0 points in GS.
Banik Ostrava - lost to Bayer Leverkusen (a top 6 team)
Basle - lost to Inter-Milan (a top 6 team)
Dynamo Kyiv - bt Trabzonspor and then 10 pts (an unlucky 3rd)
Maccabi Haifa - lost to Rosenborg who then got 2 GS pts.
Grazer AK - lost to Liverpool (a top 6 team)

2003-04 Top 6 ranked country teams playing CLQR3.

Marseille - 4 pts (3rd)
Borussia Dortmund - lost to Brugge (on pens). Brugge got 8 pts in GS
Lazio - 5 pts (4th)
Deportivo - 10 pts (2nd) - Semi-Finalists.
Chelsea - 13 pts - (1st)- Semi-Finalists.
Celta Vigo - 9 pts (2nd) - Last 16.
Newcastle - lost to P. Belgrade (on pens). Partizan 3 pts in GS.

2003-04 Champions of countries 9-16

Porto - 11 pts - Tournament winners.
Lokomotiv Moscow - bt Shakhtor and then 8 pts in GS - Last 16.
Sparta Prague - bt Vardar Skopje and then 8 pts in GS - Last 16.
Rangers - bt FC Kobenhavn and then 4 pts in GS (4th).
Dynamo Kyiv - bt Dinamo Zagreb and then 7 pts in GS (4th).
Club Brugge - bt Borussia Dortmund and then 8 pts in GS (3rd).
Austria Wien - lost to Marseille
Grasshoppers - lost to AEK Athens who got 2 pts in GS.

The above isn't to say that Champions from countries 9 down can't perform well. Look at Porto (but then Portugal are now a top 6 country too) but to say they merit direct access ahead of teams from the top-ranked countries. Looking through rose-tinted spectacles at the past - yes but on sporting merit - no.

Author: ferdi
Date: 17-05-2006, 15:10
Edited by: ferdi
at: 17-05-2006, 15:12

So then compare my suggestion to last year's CL group stage:

27 out of last year's 32 teams would have been qualified under my model.

The five teams which would not have been in CL in my model were

Artmedia (made 6 pts, 3rd place in GS)
Thun (made 4 pts, 3rd place in GS)
Rosenborg (made 4 pts, 3rd place in GS)
Anderlecht (made 3 pts, 4th place in GS)
Rapid Wien (made 0 pts, 4th place in GS)

instead we would have had

Basel (reached QF in UC)
Monaco (eliminated by Basel in UCR2)
Donezk (eliminated in UCR2)
Sporting (eliminated in UCR1)
Everton (eliminated in UCR1)

As you see the sub-top-14 champions (and the sub-top-8 runners up) have no chance in the CL, so why does anyone want to see them playing there?)

Author: doctor
Date: 17-05-2006, 15:14

yes you calculated very well but this sistem help top 6 countrys for 10 years,when groups have been introduced,look at some figures from 80-94, when all countrys have been equal and played almost same number of matches....
I tell you what happend football was interesting all over europe and had some almost perfect teams about 4 ,but the rest where very competitive
So now you see what seeding and groups have managed do to football
This sistem has helped 5 countrys to become fotbal industry with to many money and other countrys with to few money
So we have a chanse here to suport the system or to talk about the mistakes,I think that 2 teams in Cl maximum for top 16 countrys and in rest only 1. Necause it`s a Cl not a UC,and in uefa the same maximum 2 teams for countrys 1-16 and 1 team for the rest ,with the cup winner playng in Uefa that`s 3 teams.The team from second place from countrys 1-16 play only 1 match to remain 8 with seeding if you want but no 33%.and 4th team from countrys 1-16 plays 1 match to qualfy in groups.
In groups i aprove seeding would be good ,but 0% national coef.
And then will have a Cl and a Ul that helps all countrys and brings a benefit equal for all countrys.

Author: badgerboy
Date: 17-05-2006, 15:27

Ferdi

I want to see them playing there (or at least having the chance to play there) because I believe the competition should be open to all Champions. For teams like Artmedia and Thun getting to the GS is like winning it for some other teams and I wouldn't want to deny them (or anyone else) that chance. On the other hand all these teams have to earn their place by performing on the pitch.

Doctor, if only things were that simple. If reforming the seeding system was the answer to getting rid of the concentration of power in too few hands I'd be all in favour. But it isn't. The advantages to the big clubs are all down to the Bosman ruling and who has all the money. CL prize money helps this (and continues to increase the imbalances) but it's all economics - not seeding. The genie is out of the bottle and anyone who can put it back whilst keeping even half the people happy and preventing any kind of breakaway league or organization will deserve a sainthood (or at the very least, if you're English, a knighthood for services to football).

Author: dawgs
Date: 17-05-2006, 15:33
Edited by: dawgs
at: 17-05-2006, 15:36

@ferdi
The reason to see the champions of countries 16-50 in CL is because they are champions. On the other hand the "global interests" ask for the galacticos in the CL - no, it's not the Evertons or the Lyons or the PSVs or Celtics of this world - it's the Milans and the Barcelonas and the Chelseas.

So trying to perfect your system... Take away any team outside the top3 in country ranking. Then qualify teams not based on domestic performance, but on advertising contracts: Barca, RealM, Milan, Juve,Inter, Chelsea, ManUtd, Liverpool and Arsenal in... Everybody else play in the UEFA Cup. No need for pesky outsiders in the Super League.

@badgerboy
I for one would gladly celebrate the formation of the SuperLeague outside the UEFA jurisdiction and w/o the legitimacy the CL has now. Then each customer would chose a product - the sporting competition run by UEFA or the business competition run by the G14.

Re: UEFA Competitions - redesign from scratch?
Author: doctor Date: 17-05-2006, 15:41	Man you don`t understand something,the galactics excists but with a fair system they will exist in other countrys too,with this system they will be only in top 3 !!!!!!!!!!!! yon isn`t galactic ,it's a perfect team but not build with exagerous sume of money like other teams

Author: MalcolmW
Date: 17-05-2006, 17:38

Its not the Bosman ruling per se which created the problem, but football club's failure to react properly to it. Football agents (even with minimal qualifications) are adept at dealing with the issues. Everyone else involved is too distracted by football to get their heads around the issues.

By way of example, Leeds when in financial distress agreed an agent's fee to place Harry Kewell elsewhere. As he had, from boyhood, always supported Liverpool he was determined to go there in preference to any other club. They didn't have to offer the best personal terms, simply acceptable ones. So Leeds had agreed to pay a huge commission fee that simply wasn't necessary, because they didn't know their own player well enough. Whose fault is that? Not Kewell's, nor his agent's.
When Bolton Wanderers signed Hierro for a season he was allegedly paid by selection/appearance only. No basic wage at all. But he was personally keen to experience English football and he was instrumental in taking Bolton into Europe for the first time. Bolton surely cannot have been the only club to know of Hierro's desire, but they got a fabulous deal. And so did he.
Money is a great help, but it, of itself, wins nothing. The team and squad need to be happy, individually and collectively, to achieve to their optimum. Chelsea will drop a b*ll*ck somewhere and undo themselves - after all, they are not using Mourinho's talents fully and will eventually have too many disconted squad members.
Players values are efectively amortized over their conract period, so ManU's sale of Beckham gave them optimum value. Galacticos don't win much.
Middlesbrough, as well as making some big signings, have developed a splendid youth policy, giving them coverage in all positions to a surprising standard, essentially from local talent. Talent is EVERYWHERE - it simply isn't developed/recognised in most cases.

Re: UEFA Competitions - redesign from scratch?
Author: ignjat63 Date: 17-05-2006, 17:45	Talking of Bosman ruling, what prevents the clubs from signing long-term contracts with players (say 6-8 years, I guess 10 would be too long)? Why is this seemingly obvious method failing in practise?

Author: Francisco
Date: 17-05-2006, 18:16

I just don't get UEFA in one thing:

why don't they do 2 competitions: UEFA League Cup and Champions Cup!

Champions Cup is basically the old (before groups) Champions of Europe Cup, where only champions enter! (52 federations, means one QR for the worse teams in order to have 32 starting in round one, till a final: pure knockout!)

UEFA League Cup: In order to balance strengths in Europe all countries should get the same number of teams (3 or 4 tops). This is basically the actual Champions League, without the name champions! The teams in Champions Cup are also playing in this League Cup, but the difference is this Cup has group stages and qualifying rounds like the current CL. In terms of groups I don't know if it wouldn't be better to have 8 or 16 (I guess it would depend on the actual number of teams eliminated in QR and which 32 or 64 teams are the best for this format). After the group stage if feasible there should be another group stage - in order to feel this is a league!. If it's not then pure knock-out till final.

This means the end of UEFA Cup and bringing back CL to it's roots!
What I don't know is if playing Champions Cup and UEFA League Cup would be good for champions, but I think since Champions Cup doesn't consume too much in terms of games (QR, round of 32, round of 16, QF, SF and Final) for a good team it's just 9 games, for a QR team it would be 11.

This way we would have a League Cup with the best teams in Europe like we have now, and we would still give a good prize to champions around Europe.

Author: Lyonnais
Date: 17-05-2006, 19:03

Talking of Bosman ruling, what prevents the clubs from signing long-term contracts with players (say 6-8 years, I guess 10 would be too long)? Why is this seemingly obvious method failing in practise?

Because if you make a mistake in your recruitment(expecting to buy the new Ronaldo and get nothing more than an ordinary 2nd division guy), then you prefer paying him high wages 3 or 4 years long rather 8 or 10 years long.

Author: ferdi
Date: 18-05-2006, 12:02

Francisco: {i>UEFA League Cup: In order to balance strengths in Europe all countries should get the same number of teams (3 or 4 tops).{/i>

Wheras I like the idea of a pure knockout champions cup - maybe with only one match in the first rounds and letting the low ranked teams play at home - I don't think that any kind of league can work well if you put teams of different class together. See the champions league:

{pre>
Rapid Wien - Bayern M�nchen 0-1 0-4
Juventus - Rapid Wien 3-0 3-1

Club Brugge - Juventus 1-2 0-1
Bayern M�nchen - Club Brugge 1-0 1-1
{/pre>

This group was extremely boring, and if the third placed teams wouldn't have been offered a place in UEFA cup, it would have been even more boring. And the situation was the same in the Ajax/Arsenal group, the Madrd/Lyon group, and the Chelsea/Liverpool group.

So you can run a champions cup with an unbalanced set of competitors because any loser team is eliminated immediately, but a leage competition would only work if you take care of letting the best teams enter instead of 4 teams from Spain and England and 3 teams from Iceland and Malta.

Author: Racing
Date: 18-05-2006, 13:57
Edited by: Racing
at: 18-05-2006, 13:59

a logical solution to the problem of lack of quality in the UEFA cup would be to expand entry from the top countries.

CL should be limited to 3 sides from top 3, 3-6 2 slots

then at least 5 UEFA Cup births from each top 3 leagues:

in england that would put into the UEFA Cup:
Arsenal, Tottenham,Blackburn, Newcastle, Bolton
from spain
Osasuna, Sevilla, Celta de Vigo, Villareal, Deportivo
from Italy
Fiorentina, Roma, Lazio, Chievo, Palermo

thats already a very strong competition, not including top other teams from germany, france and other strong individual sides, like Steaua etc

in this day and age, i can see any reason why the uefa cup entry is so small. until they got rid of the CWC, the UEFA cup was always the most difficult to win.

Re: UEFA Competitions - redesign from scratch?
Author: Forza-AZ Date: 18-05-2006, 17:08	@Racing You should replace Bolton for West Ham (Cup finalist) and Deportivo for Espanyol (Cup winner) in your list.