Forum

xml	No replies possible in the archive

G14 invitation
Author: Levski_Sofia Date: 23-05-2006, 23:25	My team, Levski Sofia have today recieved an official invitation letter from the G14 organisation to join amongst their ranks with an "observer status". Does that mean that apart from the 18 members there are other clubs involved in the organisation?

Re: G14 invitation
Author: STK Date: 23-05-2006, 23:31 Edited by: STK at: 24-05-2006, 00:19	observer status Probably they want to show that have a large support, and increase the pressure. "We are already observers" ... this is a good answer.

Re: G14 invitation
Author: hejazia Date: 24-05-2006, 00:08	Your team is who? STK

Re: G14 invitation
Author: Tomo1s4 Date: 24-05-2006, 00:37	Red Star Belgrade president got invitation to that summit but i doubt that means anything. Observer status sounds so lame anyway, "ooh i got to obsseeeerve"

Re: G14 invitation
Author: badgerboy Date: 24-05-2006, 11:25	Levski Can you clarify what the invitation is for? Is it to actually join them or simply to attend their conference? On their official website there is a section for the "G14 International Club Football Conference 2006" which is at the end of May - but it seems you need an invitation to access any info. about it.

Re: G14 invitation
Author: panda Date: 24-05-2006, 11:31	@badgerboy - what, like 'website observer status' ?? Sounds like a ploy by G14 to chat up other clubs and propagandise them into the false belief that somehow G14 is good for them also, even though they can't join.

Author: badgerboy
Date: 24-05-2006, 12:25

Who knows - perhaps they want all these other clubs to attend their conference to reassure them that they don't want to breakaway?

Or if they do there will be at least a little bit of an opportunity to join them later. Maybe they are looking for clubs to set up a "First Division" below their "Premier League".

Most likely they want to look more "inclusive" in order to undermine UEFA's European Club Forum - which is currently being touted as the true organ through which UEFA deals with the clubs.

Author: Kananga
Date: 24-05-2006, 12:52
Edited by: Kananga
at: 24-05-2006, 13:03

Perhaps they could be just looking to widen support for the Court case, Charleroi vs FIFA? I.e. The aim to get compensation for players injured on international duty & for clubs to have a greater say in when they have to release a player to his national side.

If G14 have Charleroi on board, they probably see no harm in inviting others to swell the support.

BBC has a report about some of the G14 intentions in this case - Ł740m (€1.08bn) player compensation bill from FIFA, and a reported Ł140m (€205m) for releasing G14 players to the World Cup! No wonder the G14 want a slice of that cake also.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/europe/4885094.stm

Re: G14 invitation
Author: conscious Date: 24-05-2006, 18:14	Wasn't that case already closed?

Re: G14 invitation
Author: Kananga Date: 24-05-2006, 19:07 Edited by: Kananga at: 24-05-2006, 19:08	The Belgian Court passed it on to the European Court of Justice a couple of weeks ago, so no final verdict yet.

Re: G14 invitation
Author: galatasaray Date: 30-05-2006, 22:47	18 members + some other clubs for meetings for example Galatasaray is joining all meetings of G14 since 2000

Re: G14 invitation
Author: hejazia Date: 31-05-2006, 01:44	ON the outrageous claim by the g14 to ask 1 billion Euro on compensation for release of players. The court said no and closed the case. However on the issue on Oulmers from Charleroi which is asking 600,000 Euros in dammage. The case has been referred to european court.

Author: ignjat63
Date: 31-05-2006, 12:46

Red Star got an invitation too. Their president Dragan Stojkovic Pixie said that it is a great honor and appreciation of Serbian football. He, he, he...

One question for guys in England. What gender are football clubs? Is Red Star a SHE, IT or THEY in English. In serbian Red Star is a SHE (coz STAR is a female noun) while Partizan is a HE (a warrior).

As a rule I always use THEY for football clubs when I speak english. I am not sure that is entirely correct, though.

Author: panda
Date: 31-05-2006, 13:07
Edited by: panda
at: 31-05-2006, 13:10

@ignjat63

Yeah- I think most people in England use 'they.'

As non-English people probably know, we don't realy learn any grammar at school, and English grammar is pretty loose anyway + many words and usages that were wrong when I was a child are now right, because people used them so much.

In theory, collective nouns are singular, so you'd say 'it', but 'it' sounds wrong for a group of people, especially your own team, that you love, so 'they' is better. Yeah- no he or she because no gendered nouns anyway.

Since you're posting, I'm going to ask 2 questions (to avoid them being on the immensely long seeding system tyranny thread)

1) this is the badgerboy question and I'm not sure if you answered - in Serbia Partizan and Red Star dominate. Is that interesting or boring? Do you always wish there were more teams or is the domestic drama between the two enough? Because this is analogous to the same teams dominating in a 'big' country.

This question is of course open to all where one or two teams are top - how does a Norwegian feel about Rosenborg (I know for once they have not won)?

2) Again open to all, of course. You support the breakaway of G14, in order to make the competition of the others more interesting.

When I look at the top 32 ranked, and I see more or less the teams I expect, I can see why you feel this.

But I also see that if I look at the 18 of G14, there is no chelsea. Chelsea is an extreme example of a man or a group buying the club and putting money in (season just gone, Chelsea LOST 200 million Euro as a business, season before 120 million Euro, that's a lot of money to play with); there are many other examples, just not so high-profile or so much money - Romanov-Hearts, Walker-Blackburn, Majedski-Reading, Wigan, Gretna, Red Bull Salzburg etc. The investment dramatically changes the club, not least because without a big stadium, it's impossible to have lots of fans watching.

So you can get a breakway any time, and you can have a more 'fair' competition of the rest. But how are you going to stop Abramovich 2
buying Team X and getting the 'unfair' advantage in the same way?

Author: ignjat63
Date: 31-05-2006, 13:48
Edited by: ignjat63
at: 31-05-2006, 14:02

panda

yes it is boring when two teams dominate. Even as a red star fan I hope a third team appears soon (OFK Beograd the most likely candidate). I would hate if red star was the only dominant team. No joy in that really. In the 1945-1992 period Red Star won like 3 titles average pre decade which always meant an interesting league. So I will be watching closely EPL. Would Chelsea be the only champ for the next ten years. If so they would be probably the most hated team in EPLs history. Could be counterprodactive. Because however strange it sounds winning trophies year for year is not everything.

Your second question is more complex. Actually, these long threads about seeding, ranking etc helped me see "western" point of view. So my oppinion of G18 changed a bit.

1) First of all G18 are a reallity te be reckoned with. To me they are just a bunch of greedy bastards (pardon my french) though at the same time lovely teams to watch on the pitch. But I do not see any reason why should they stop being greedy. Whatever compromise UEFA makes with them sooner or later they would want more. That is the nature of wanting more and more power. So in the end I see only two outcomes: either G18 takes over UEFA from within, or they leave. As a lesser of two evils I would want them out. If UEFA dances to their music that is the worse of the two outcomes. That is why I do want them out. I do not think a lasting and satisfactory compromise is possible between UEFA and G18.

2) The reason why I suggested top 32 ranked teams competition has nothing to do with G18. Many of you guys stated in different topics that you do not want to see an only champions' competition but the competition of the best teams of Europe. If so OK by me. But I do not agree that a compromise is good idea. Like "It is good that all the champions have the chance to enter CL". The reason I think a compromise is a bad idea is because champions' cup (or league) and the competition of the best European clubs are essentially two different kinds of things, of completely different nature. So why not go for 32 best teams straight away? With other competitive european teams in UEFA cup we might actually see more diversity in top 32 than now. Why compromise when you can have the real thing?

3)Now for the Abramovich question. The G18 did not get so powerful because of the rich owners like the guy. They got so powerful because of the other reasons. I guess there will always be people like him. The solution (if Roman is a problem at all) must come within the capitalist system. Say you are a computer programmer in England. Is there a top salary for you no matter where you work. Or you can have a small salary in one firm and really great in the other for the same kind of work. I think the solution of too much money in football could be along those lines. Personally, I believe any football player that costs over 15 million euros is overpriced.

Author: panda
Date: 31-05-2006, 17:12

The 'two teams' question:

Yes, I can easily think myself into the position of being Scottish, since I followed Celtic since I was a child- therefore the season is usually great or a disaster, depending on if surpass Rangers.

This made me think- yes, as you can read on the thread about 'Goals of your team and Europe', in a smaller country in population terms, Euro club football becomes more important - as Scottish posters write, the true test for Celtic or Rangers (and let's hope, now Hearts), is if they can do well in Europe.

As written previously on the other thread, Chelsea is still 'new' in the EPL. We have not yet stopped hating Man U, so for at least these 2 yrs we forgive Chelsea because they are not Man U (but now we start to hate them, also because Mourinho never gives credit to any team that beats Chelsea and this is very un-English). But I suspect that another thing is the big diversity of domestic football (and one can follow Scotland too), with many teams, many matchdays (sometimes every day except Thurs and Fri, and 5 or 6 different kick-off times over the 2 days of the weekend), then a lot of other sport (cricket, rugby union 6 nations,rugby league, snooker, Wimbledon, Grand National, Open golf) that has a big English following, either because it is traditional (e.g. cricket) or because it is taking place in Britain, even if we have no chance of doing well (e.g. Wimbledon).

So emotionally, there is a) the fortunes of my team, but then b) so much other sport where I (and I guess a majority of English sport-followers) care about what happens, that the individual 'fairness' or 'unfairness' of CL and UC is not so much to the front of the mind. Specifically, if you ask anyone except currently a Chelsea fan - would you rather win the EPL or the CL, I think a majority might reply EPL, and many might care more for e.g. English rugby team to win than for another football club team, not their own, although English, to win CL. I don't know, but for sure, if your team loses one week, for sure something else happy is happening around you that week and you can pretend to forget.

Format:
1) Yes- G18 is greedy, but I guess that is also a (not necessarily good) consequence of the football-business. A club with shares answers not to the fans, but the shareholders. Yes, at least success on the pitch still matters though.

2) After what YOU posted, I checked the current top 32, and I thought -yes- it would be very interesting to have a competition with them, and not so many are missing. Maybe the principle of 'everyone must have a chance EVERY YEAR' is coming from people who have grown up with the FA cup format.

3) Yes, for sure in rational terms footballers sell for and earn too, too much. But sometimes I get this fantasy. There is Beckham, or Shevchenko or someone about to take a free kick, and God says to the fan sitting in front of the TV. OK Mr Madrid fan (or Mr Milan fan etc), Beckham will score if you donate him 1 euro at this mom,ent (through the red button of your digital TV). All fans will donate. Beckham scores. Fan is happy. Beckham earns millions in a second. The correlation is not that direct, but for sure there are around footballers who can turn matches, one way or another, and so much money is generated as a result, they are paid zillions.

Re: G14 invitation
Author: ignjat63 Date: 31-05-2006, 17:24	So panda, do you think a long term compromise between UEFA and G18 is possible or not. Because I think that is the most important question. A lot of people seem to like present CL format. But it can last only if G18 are not getting more by UEFA. I am not concerned so much for the present but for the future.

Author: badgerboy
Date: 31-05-2006, 17:27

I concur totally with Panda - it's always "they" or occasionally in moments of great patriotism "we".

Thanks for the answer to my

"domination" question. I hope Chelsea (or anyone else for that matter) don't continue to dominate the English game for years to come. If they do then the question I still don't know the answer to is - would breakaway super leagues (or just authorised super leagues) be better for all concerned? My own opinion when looking at countries like Scotland would be - let the top clubs get together with top clubs from other countries to form a "Super League" - "Atlantic League" or whatever - with the national leagues below acting as feeders with some automatic promotion and relegation. But many people say that the departure of the bigger clubs would simply kill the game for the rest of the clubs. If the domination of, not just Chelsea but, the same three or four clubs continues in England then the same question has to arise there too.

That said I definitely don't support the breakaway of any specific organisation or anything that results in a closed league without automatic promotion and relegation, so unlike Ignjat 63, I'd rather see UEFA continuing to run the whole show.

On the issue of the "Champions League". I guess my view is just different again. I like the fact that every Champion club gets the opportunity to participate but like the increased depth of competition provided by the additional clubs from the higher ranked countries. I still think UEFA took the wrong name for the competition (however great a marketing label "Champions League" is). They should have dropped the word "Champions" and called the competition simply the "European Cup" - which is what everyone used to call it in the old days anyway. Carry on giving all Champions an opportunity (but not a divine right to take part) but let all of them have a second go in the UEFA Cup too.

The Abramovich question. Well the recent Independent Review of European football recommends a salary cap based on turnover. There are lots of press reports about it on the net with the Premier League already launching a campaign against it as an "EU grab for power" - an argument the UK government is apparently falling for hook line and sinker. The question here is - does a salary cap actually stop a club bettering itself. OK - stopping Abramovich buying ALL the best players in Europe could only be a good thing. But if someone wants to buy my club Brighton - for example - and buy up all the best Championship players and create a side that can get to the Premiership should this also be stopped? I guess there are answers. There is no limit on the private investment that can be used in other areas - transfer fees and stadium investment - for example. So an Abramovich can still pay out Ł30m or so on a player but the club has to be making enough income to stump up the wages. Seems fairly reasonable to me - is it?

One final thing I have to disagree slighly with Ignjat63 on. Yes, money in football has reached ridiculous levels but I actually think the main problem is not the dozen or so players at the very top level - who may (in relative terms) be worth their salary - and certainly their transfer fee. It's the raising of the bar for the "mediocre" players - those that aren't really worth Ł1m but routinely go for anything from Ł5-Ł10m instead that I think are the real problem.

Author: panda
Date: 31-05-2006, 17:27
Edited by: panda
at: 31-05-2006, 17:32

My immediate response is yes, such a compromise is possible, but I will have a think as to why I have this intuition, and then post (I guess it will be a different thread by then)

@badgerboy

I agree - there are many 'journeyman' players who are not worth what they get in wages or what they sell for. There is only one Henry (one Ronaldinho etc) so unsurprisingly they cost more than their weight in gold.

I'm glad you have posted on this, because although I did follow my home town club when they were in the league (Cambridge) they were never my team in the way Brighton is yours, so it's interesting what perspective you have as someone whose team is unlikely to be challenging for EPL; most posters on this forum support teams that are big relative to the country.

Author: badgerboy
Date: 31-05-2006, 18:04

Panda

I must confess I feel like something of a fraud when compared to some of the "passionate" supporters on here - which ever their club may be.

There's not really a good reason why I follow Brighton. I come from Buckinghamshire - which didn't have a football league club when I was growing up. Now it has two - Wycombe (the "real" one) and Milton Keynes Dons (who came from Wimbledon so shouldn't really count. I think I changed my club about every six months when I was young until I was nearly 10. Brighton (who I must confess I'd never really noticed before) played Arsenal in their first ever game in the First Division - August 1979 - and got thumped 4-0. I seem to remember Liam Brady being amongst the scorers (but that might be memory playing tricks). For some reason I've called them "my club" ever since.

In reality I think my football "passions" are fairly widespread. Relegation this year brought more of a shrug of inevitability rather than cries of anguish. I was cheering Wycombe up through the leagues while they were still on the rise but barely blinked at their dismal fall from the top of League Two this year.

I like to see "unfashionable" clubs on the rise - either clubs reaching heights never attained before or that they haven't reached for a long time. Hence my highlights of this season - Wigan's first season in the Premier League and Reading, Colchester and Accrington's promotions.

In European terms I'm pretty much the same. I like to see "new" names. For some reason I punched the air with delight when I saw that Mlada Boleslav had qualified for the CL for example. I think while a lot of people who use this forum logically follow the biggest clubs outside the "top five" countries these are the very clubs I like to see lose. Don't get me wrong - I've got nothing against Anderlecht or Club Brugge (for example) and either of these v Milan or Juve and I know who I'm cheering on. But frankly I get just as bored seeing the same names from the "mid-ranking" countries every year as I know a lot of posters here do seeing Milan, Juve, Arsenal and Real Madrid. So next year my cheers for Standard Liege will be that little bit more enthusiastic than those for Brugge would have been, ditto for Liberec and I'm sure a few others...

Sorry, just meandered some way off topic. I'll come back on my next post!

Author: STK
Date: 31-05-2006, 18:24

So, it is CL a compromis, between :

1) G14, a close league;

2) as open competition, without diferential access and minimal spots per country ???

Maby from this persective it is, because it is not 100% closed.

But, if i try to visualise both situation 1) and 2), both bring more advantages that the present CL to 80% clubs, maby more, advantages of economical and competitiona nature, and also both situation represent a higher rate of progress for these 80% clubs.

On the other way, G14 clubs, from both situation, will suffer great looses economical and sportive.

Now i don't think that G14, have lack the means to create that close league until now, from almost 6 years of treat, if i'm not mistaken, nobody stopped them to create their league.

Maby first time was about greed, but to a close analyse they reach the conclusion that better that CL is the top of their income.

If someone can say that a G14 league would bring more income to the members than the current income realised from CL + domestic leagues, then i say that someone have big problem to percive reality.

About other clubs, i think that they will be blessed, from either situation: I think that in the situation in which G14 will be close leahue (1) they will have far more to benefit than in the situation in which we will go back in time to situation (2). But either situation is clear an improvement than the current.

When you speak about compromise, i always think to a compromis between G14 clubs and other, but like i see you are reffer to a compromise between money and competiton, and look to the things from a western subjective perspective.

The curren CL is a better solution, for the western fans that want to see some footbal also, than the G14 fantasy project.

1) G14 greed and money, and 0% competition, nothing interesting for western fans;

2) the current CL, UEFA enchanted for western desire, a lot of money guarantee, very little competition to see, but at least creates the illusion of a relative interesting competition;

But don't you forget something? The other european football fans? Eastern, Northern, Central, Southern? What they want to see? Do you see at least one of these fans praising the current system? Because i didn't.

About this system is much to criticise, i guess that if Barca, Real, Man. Utd. Liverpool, ... make a very restirictive league (CL) and refuses to play football outside their circle of friends, one of them will win of course, they take the tile of the best teams in Europe, and use the enchanted coefficients with country contribution and high CL bonus coeffs, will also be in top 10, 20 best teams in Europe.

No guys the situation is different, everyone is best if he do not play, the top coefficients are irelevant about the teams strength. They create there their little system and play against the same teams every year, some of the team with domestic spots guaranteed also (Juve, Milan). This system do not creates best teams from Europe, the lack of variety is annoying, disregarding over the performace also, Barca, Real,... are CL co-organisators along with UEFA, they don't even have the right to participate in CL.

Author: ignjat63
Date: 31-05-2006, 18:30

"One final thing I have to disagree slighly with Ignjat63 on. Yes, money in football has reached ridiculous levels but I actually think the main problem is not the dozen or so players at the very top level - who may (in relative terms) be worth their salary - and certainly their transfer fee. It's the raising of the bar for the "mediocre" players - those that aren't really worth Ł1m but routinely go for anything from Ł5-Ł10m instead that I think are the real problem."

No, actually, we fully agree on that, you just thought of mentioning mediocre players and I did not.

How many fans throughout Europe punch the air in delight when the likes of Mlada Boleslav qualify for something. I'd say very few indeed. Good for you. But yes, it is always nice to see new names, not the same ones year after year.

Thinking about badger's (not from Bagder's Drift, are you) words of teams we are passionate about. I never support top teams in their domestic league. So I support whoever can snatch the title - sometimes it is Valencia or Deportivo, sometimes Bordeaux or Werder Bremen, or Roma etc. In England that would be Liverpool coz they've been down and out for so long. I really cheered when Werder or Kaiserslautern took the title.

Author: ignjat63
Date: 31-05-2006, 18:38

STK I read your post now.

As far as I understood, football fans in the west (top countries at least) have a reason for liking present CL format. They explained it already.

The biggest money comes from TV market of the top western countries. Those guys pay a lot of money to see the matches and therefore they have the right to demand which teams they want to see. They do not owe other football nations anything (be it northern, eastern, central etc). so in a way it is them with their TV money that sort of decide the format of the competitions.

Unfortunatelly for Eurocups football fans from other parts of Europe that is the sad state of affairs these days. It is not their fault we are economically backward.

Author: STK
Date: 31-05-2006, 18:48

I agree that there are overpriced players, unreal budgets, but this thing is not of the essence:

1) this is the effect of investment, country economy, free market, globalisation;

2) i don't think that this is healthy to be controled;

But this is not very important. The proove that the giant bugets and salary are not enough to guarantee winning is the current seeding system. If that were enough, the seeding system and the dirrect access wouldn't exist.

Let's not mix the two different issue; the economical difference is one thing, and the little clubs, little because they came countries with weak economy must fight and compensate trough choices this gap, and at least minimise it; the different regulation is another thing How you maby now, in the democratic legislation, the economical discrimination is sanctionated like any other discrimination. But this not stop people to became richer than others, respecting the same law for everyone. UEFA regulation represent the legislation for european football, why they create different laws and premises for countries? Those countries, don't have suveranity like statal entities? There are cpuntries that have different rights regarding the internation laws?

Author: STK
Date: 31-05-2006, 19:04
Edited by: STK
at: 31-05-2006, 19:15

So we have 15 CL teams with direct access, and o lot of many other teams from top 5 countries that play only CLQR3 like seeded, for another 17 places. Then excuse me but this is almost a close competition.

Why is important that 2-3 teams (from not top 5 countries) escape in CLGS?

How can these 2-3 teams could have real chances to chalange the trophy against other 25-26 teams (who maby have "good" reffs also)?

If we had 10-15 teams then other will be the result. Now we put Steaua and Rosenborg in CLQR3, in place of puting Steaua - Real Madrid and Rosenborg-Man. Utd in CLQR3 or CLQR2, and both Steaua and Rosenborg to have chances to reach CLGS. A random example.

I understand about different values / leagues ... teams places 2nd to play direct in CLGS (?1?!?1), but we put champions of Romania, Norway, Sweden, Serbia, Bulgaria to neutralise eachother in CLQR3, and team place 3rd and 4th to play seeded ... what is this?

Author: STK
Date: 31-05-2006, 19:29

And i also put a question, that was not answered.

How come if Italy, Spain, England have such competitive leagues the same teams won the chmapionship over and over again, for 10-20 yeras? For Italy i've got the answer, how about Spain and England?

I must understand the "competitive" term in a wrong way. I know that in a competitive league, there are more teams 6-7-8 who chalange the title in 10-20 years, at least few new faces, not the same 1-2-3 over and over again.

So when the team place 4th in Spain, Italy and England will be better than the romanian champion, in that day i will cut every contact with european football, but it is not the case, it is only UEFA who give the a superior statut to that team, and it is disgusting to watch how they destroy everything that some FAs (inclusive romanian FAs) have been founded a while back, UEFA, an organism to rule and organise european football, to mentain the spirit of sport and competition, and to use football like an instrument of peace and tolerance between nation. It has nothing to do with what we assist today.

Author: badgerboy
Date: 31-05-2006, 20:58

"How come if Italy, Spain, England have such competitive leagues the same teams won the chmapionship over and over again, for 10-20 yeras? For Italy i've got the answer, how about Spain and England?"

Money is again the answer my friend.

And yes, in a way you do misunderstand the use of the word competitive - or at least it's context. People say that a fair number of Premiership teams are "competitive" in Europe meaning they are capable of having a good run in the UEFA Cup (or just maybe the CL). Middlesbro showed it this year. Yes they had luck in their run but virtually any Premiership club could POSSIBLY do the same next year. Maybe they will be eliminated in Round 1 - that's possible too. But would you say a team outside the "big three" in Romania has the same chance - people are worrying on here already the damage to the coefficient if Sportul qualifies ahead of Dinamo.

Clubs outside the big three or four in England can't compete with the top three or four for exactly the same reasons Anderlecht, Steaua, PSV and many others find it so hard to compete with the same clubs in Europe - it's nothing to do with coefficients - it's MONEY.

Some stats.

In the 10 seasons from 1976-77 to 1985-86 13 different clubs finished in the top three places in the English first division. Liverpool were the dominant team (they won it 8 times) but twelve different teams chased them home - some very closely.

From 1986-87 to 1995-96 the number was still 13. Seven of these were the same as in the previous ten years but six were different. Despite Liverpool still dominating at the start of the period and Manchester United by the end (the Premiership era began in 1992) six different clubs actually won it.

In the last ten years only six clubs have filled the top three places. Manchester United have been there every year, Arsenal nine times. Now Chelsea have joined them. Even overspending Leeds only hit the top three once.

Look at the number of points pulled in by the top three and the picture gets even more depressing:

211-220-232-233-219-244-230-244-255-256. That's FIVE more wins each on average for the top three clubs last season to ten years ago. I only just put these stats together. I think I need a lie down...

It's money not seeding...
money not seeding....
money not seeding....

Re: G14 invitation
Author: ignjat63 Date: 31-05-2006, 21:11	"... and the picture gets even more depressing...I think I need a lie down..." Don't do anything stupid...

Author: STK
Date: 31-05-2006, 22:50

@badgerboy,

Are you sure that is not more than money?

Real Madrid and Man. Utd. are not two of the richest clubs in Spain/England, but if i'm not mistaken are the richest club in the world.

Why this two clubs do not win frecventy the CL trophy, if they have considerable more money that their opponents? Do you want me to say how many CL trophies have won Man. Utd. in the last 20 years? Or how lucky they have been to won against Bayern?

Why don't you understand that money cannot guarantee performances, but only to help it?

Why the bigest 2 club budgets in Italy need specific methods to win the titles if the performance is gurantee it?

Why do you call competitive a league which do not offer variety? It means only 2 things: either the league is competitive and some teams are helped to win every year, either the league is not competitive, and some teams value is definativly higer than other teams. Period.

How many CL trophies won Chealse, despite a huge amount of money throw in a stupid manner over the window, and with the large assistance of the seeding system?

Re: G14 invitation
Author: ignjat63 Date: 31-05-2006, 23:32	I'd say it is money moreless. But if you have about 10 disgustingly rich football clubs then you expect one taking the title every decade or so. Therefore it is not a surprise - Barcelona, Liverpool (are they disgustingly rich, really?), Milan, Real, Porto (huge surprise), Manchester Utd, Dortmund... Some might even call it satisfactory diversity .

Author: badgerboy
Date: 01-06-2006, 03:37

Yes STK

Of course it is not guaranteed the richest club will win. But it's 90% sure that "one of the richest" - say the top twenty will and more than 90% sure that a club that isn't on that list wont be able to sustain a challenge year on year.

If PSV or Ajax have a great year (even sometimes they don't particularly) at least some of their best players tend to leave and the clubs must constantly rebuild. Same in the Premier League. If a club produces great players actually capable of beating one of the four big clubs consistently then the chances are in the next transfer window the important players are bought by the richer clubs.

Of course money isn't everything but it helps a hell of a lot more than being in a particular pot in the CL draw or not having to play the odd qualifying round in late July.

Read my last post re: the word competitive again please. No, teams outside the top four CANNOT compete (over a whole season) with the top four clubs. But that doesn't mean they are not competitive when it comes to the UEFA Cup AS MIDDLESBROUGH PROVED. And again - by "competitive" I don't mean they all will (or should) win every match but that they have the potential to do very well.

You'll remember the stats I gave on the Premier League in my last post. Becoming far too predictable over the past ten years but lots of different teams involved prior to that.

Compare Romania.

1976-77 to 1985-86 Seven different clubs in the top 3 (Dinamo 7, Steaua 7, Univ. Craiova 7, Arges Pitesti 4, Sportul 3, Politehnica 1, Hunedoara 1)

1986-87 to 1995-96 Seven again - Steaua 10, Dinamo 9, Univ. Craiova 5, Victoria 3, Electroputere 1, National 1, Rapid (where did they come from?) 1

Since 1996-97 Eight or nine (this season incomplete) - but four or five (Sportul the possible fifth) have been third just once (and I'm guessing Arges, Ceahlaul, Brasov and Gloria weren't that close to winning the title). Otherwise it's Steaua (7 or 8), Rapid (7 or 8), Dinamo (7 or 8), National 2.

So - for the past 30 years the Romanian championship has been about as "competitive" - in domestic terms - as the English league has become in the last 10 years. In European terms over the same period the best English clubs have done just a little bit better than the best Romanian ones too...

Ignjat63

Liverpool are up there on the rich list I guess. I grew up with them winning everything so - although I was leaping around my hotel in Tbilisi when they won the European Cup last year a return for domination by them is no more appealing than that of Chelsea or Manchester United really. Then again they're pretty poor compared to Chelsea. I have hope though. The signing of Shevchenko is a worry - he's quite good, I'm 50-50 on Ballack but Mourinho wants to sign Roberto Carlos... Might just be a sign that he's on the way to going ga-ga, he'll quit when too many people criticise him for buying a defender who doesn't like defending and keeps putting free-kicks into row Z. Mourinho will go to Madrid and build a team based on solid defence - taking John Terry and Frank Lampard along as lynchpins of the new team. Sven will take the Chelsea job and his first signing will be David Beckham - who also likes taking free kicks...

Badger's Drift? As far as I know that's only a fictional place. A lot of people get murdered there and DCI Barnaby (who looks very like Bergerac) comes along and solves the crime...

Author: panda
Date: 01-06-2006, 12:05

a) Liverpool - an interesting case, because for sure they are rich, but their problems stem entirely from not being 'digustingly rich.' They are simply not disgusting enough for me. For some reason they have so far failed to attract mega-investment; if you look in detail (which I do as a follower) I see they are always losing out in their attempts to sign big players, and they are relying on Benitez to get the best out of thee existing ones or 'resurrecting' ones that are there e.g. Kewell. When a player underperforms e.g. Morientes, that is making a discernible difference at the top level of performance.

And certainly it was easier for Liverpool (also in 2001) to focus on defined cup games than the week by week of the league (if do not beat a weak side, then lose ground against, previously Man U, now Chelsea).

So this supports the badgerboy argument about money.

b) Chelsea - well, thank goodness they did not win the CL yet. But within the top 16, they have not yet benefited totally from the seeding system. They are still a Pot B GS side; that means their chances of WINNING the GS G and drawing a 2nd place side is slightly less; that in turn means by coming 2nd this year, they got Barca. When they get to Pot A, they will REALLY be benefiting from the seeding, but that will be the result of several years of good performances.

So this also shows a point of 'compromise' - not between G14 and the rest, but between cup and league. I want the excitement of the cup, I also want the 'certainty' of the league; I can't have both (to take the most obvious example, a final is either between the two sides regarded as best, as in the tennis seeded raw where 1 and 2 are on opposite sides, OR it is betwen a favourite and an underdog. Both are exciting, but not possible in the same match).

Even in the heavily seeded tennis draw, someone can have an easy or hard route to the final - there is a LOT of luck involved, even outside the luck of individual matches.

'Ideologically'
Of course the result is everything i.e. history remembers just the winners; so if you prefer KO-type format, it also means you think the existence of luck in sport is a good thing. (This is probably right; except chess, all sport has luck)

c) little teams

Yes, I have to accept the STK point, that a big 5 poster finds it hard to consider the POV of -say- a Norwegian fan; because the prime desire of the big 5 fan is to see teams of his country play.

Like badgerboy, I also cheer for unexpected little teams (this is English love underdog + the specific practice of the FA cup, to make a lot of giant-killers. So I cheered for Thun (in GS, you can hope 2 teams qualify, so cheering for Thun did not mean Arsenal must be out).

This also makes me think about the STK point - for the 'big' team supporter, having new little teams around is more entertaining. IS it also patronising? Maybe, but I hope not i.e. if a little team CAN succeed consistently and become big (I hope, in England, for Wigan) I would be very happy.

d) Money

Unfortunately, I cannot see the way out here. If you have a good season, no matter who you are, your players are vulnerable to approaches from richer teams. Above all, most sides in England are in financial trouble; they sell their best players as a way of earning money to stay afloat.

Re: G14 invitation
Author: ignjat63 Date: 01-06-2006, 13:04	badger, STK and others concerned a while ago there was a topic about dufferent ways to measure league competitiveness and compare different leagues. Many of us found the topic fascinating. Worth a look if you have the time http://www.kassiesa.net/uefa//forum/view.php?archive=2005.Q2&topic=20050510171220 .xml

Author: panda
Date: 01-06-2006, 13:44

Thanks ignjat63.

I just read this thread- it is one of the best, I think, because it is saying 'What is the right (or A right) statistical measure of competitiveness?'

Again, it is complex to see what factors are subjectively important (apart from the most obvious, who wins?). A club that is getting many standard deviations off the mean just on its own is not that interesting (EPL - Sunderland this year) but if the relegation battle is even many teams for one spot of safety, then it IS interesting (Portsmouth's escape this season, the last day of last season, when the bottom team, West Brom, then won and escaped.) Yes, last season very boring, really (except people were pleased it was NOT Man U or Arsenal), this season more interesting at top, but chelsea's early lead made it not yet interesting enough.

At several times during season, it was commented (negatively) 4th place in points is closer to relegation threshold than to Chelsea's top place.

In other words, the 'minor' battles SPL - who gets 2nd CL place, EPL, who gets last CL or UC place, can have a lot of interest - which is maybe why we are saying Standard deviation is a good measure?

Finally, important to distinguish, as Badgerboy does, between
a) competitive = many teams struggle for same aims (win, not relegate etc)

b) competitive = a league's teams have good chance of reaching late stages of CL and UC

Author: ignjat63
Date: 01-06-2006, 14:04

It is always imperative to know what are we talking about. So defining terminology is obviously a must. The same for the word competitive. For me, both definitions are OK.But the context is different. A competitive league domestically or competitive league Eurocups-wise. I'd say countries' ranking list is a precise meassurement of the latter. As top ranked countries have more teams that will do well in Eurocups as opposed to lower ranked countries which only have one or two Eurocups-wise competitive teams. That seems to make all the difference (or most of it anyway).

As I am always interested in ex-Yu league statistics I went along badger's idea. That league was dominated by the four clubs (Red star, Partizan, Hajduk and Dinamo) but had 8 top 3 teams in the 50s, 9 in the 60s, 11 in the 70s and 9 in the 80s.

Domestic league competitiveness means the "evenness" of the clubs, or their equality of strength and I do not see any other way to measure it than standard deviation of 50%. On that topic we all seemed to agree on that and RSSSF had the same idea too.