Forum

xml	No replies possible in the archive

Author: Dragonite
Date: 13-04-2007, 21:11

The true reason(s) why people want to change the CL format

I’ve been thinking about this and I think it deserves a topic to be discussed.

Many people are discussing possible changes in the CL format, using arguments such as “diversity”, “develop football everywhere”… very noble reasons. However, I doubt theirs true (main) reasons are so noble.

It is human nature, people are selfish. They think first about what’s good for them, and most of them don’t really care about the others.

For instance, I doubt many people in this forum care about the development of football in Moldova… when they use arguments like “good for everybody”, in fact it’s disguised “good for them”.

Teams from England or Spain want to have 4 teams in the CL because it’s hard to be champion or even finish top 2 or top 3 and if they qualify 4 teams, even if they just finish 4th, they can still play the CL. A good example is Arsenal. Arsene Wenger is against cutting off the 4th English team… no wonder; the 4th English team is precisely Arsenal!!

Teams from countries like Poland, Sweden, or Slovakia… want to play the CL every year, but under this format this rarely happens. They want the number of teams per country to be reduced so that theirs champions have better chances to reach a 32 teams CL.

Usual CL participants but with poor performances (like Anderlecht or Olympiakos) would also like the idea to see the number of teams per country reduced, since it would increase theirs chances not to lose (almost) every game.

The question is:

YOU, forum member who are in favour/against of reducing the number of teams per country, what are your (selfish/true) reasons to want it?

Author: moro
Date: 13-04-2007, 21:22

I want it to change because it's boring. I think Badgerboy is reasonable with his 6-teams groups because since I'm born they (Uefa, Fifa) keep stucking our heads with 4-teams groups.
I'd like to see two romanian teams in GS, so any change that could harm this, I dislike. This one is very selfish.
Speaking about teams like Anderlecht, let's ban those beeing 4-th in group three years in a row: one or two season out of CL!

Author: ikoon
Date: 13-04-2007, 23:57

Yes i think that you are right to some point; users from weaker countries (kept out of CL range) have very selfish reasons to want to change a boring competiton. Don't be fooled it isn't a boring semi-closed league, boringness is just an excuse.

I give you my mine reason for wanting CL changed: lack of diversity (cause), which lead to at least 3 very negative effects:

1. lack of representation; most countries are not represented in the first european competiton, which is in fact build on economical grounds not competitonal and sportive premise;

2. boringness; seeing same teams from same countries it's like seeing a movie contless times, no matter how good it was, we must change the actors and scenario from time to time;

3. investment colapse in football infrastructure from countries who must climb a mountain only to reach 9 spots in CLGS, once every 5 or so years; there are other ways for weak countries investors to make money and fame than to waste them on "romance" (how english users like to say); they better go and invest in english first division and hope to promote in EPL.

The current CL is build in a way in which one teams great performances don't count for nothing. A lower country to raise must be in block 3-4 teams must became competitive over night, teams with no european experience and no european games. How easy is to find 3-4 powerfull investors who decide to invest all at the same time in weaker leagues?

My selfish desire is to see CL gone, not change, broke in little regional competitions. Only around those regional competitions we can build the real diversity and quality, giving all FAs from Europe a fair chance of success. It is better for teams that didn't play a international match in 10-20 years to play in a regional league, than to play only domestig games, or for teams that must kill themself for a CL spot in domestic league only to be part with the name in CL, to play in a real competition.

Author: ikoon
Date: 14-04-2007, 00:13

Then there are top 5-6 users, with very little exceptions a very unselfish bunch. They felt the god's hand (or better said Lenhar Johanseen hand) blessing their league with 2 teams in CL, then 3,4 and even 5 (with CL holder), all this in the most perfect dictatorial regim of EXCO, with no regard for what 46 FAs wants or what will be the long term consequences over the football infrastructure and development in Europe. Now coaches and managers like Alex Ferguson or Arsene Venger act like the UEFA regulation are their property.

Like you said those people and their teams don't even have to fight for a CL place; everything is gurantated both domesticaly and european. What happen when there are more competitive teams than CL spots? Italy gave the answer to that. It all have to be guarantated, even a innocent qualification match with a sweedish teams (why take 1% chance?).

Author: Kaiser
Date: 14-04-2007, 00:39
Edited by: Kaiser
at: 14-04-2007, 17:41

Then there are top 5-6 users, with very little exceptions a very unselfish bunch. They felt the god's hand (or better said Lenhar Johanseen hand) blessing their league with 2 teams in CL, then 3,4 and even 5 (with CL holder), all this in the most perfect dictatorial regim of EXCO, with no regard for what 46 FAs wants or what will be the long term consequences over the football infrastructure and development in Europe.

And I'm a specimen of this bunch, ikoon. If I was a president (thunders), teams from non-top6 countries would go headlong from CL. Moreover, I would ADD top6 teams to CL. The non-top6 champions are left only to CAPTURE the CL place. Look at Dynamo Kyiv, Levski, Steaua, Kobenhavn, Anderlecht, Olympiacos then. Successful season for them, isn't it? It's only my standpoint. So opponents of diversity (if there are some, of course) - let's combine.

Author: Lupta_Steaua
Date: 14-04-2007, 01:06

Dragonite: "I doubt many people in this forum care about the development of football in Moldova… when they use arguments like “good for everybody”, in fact it’s disguised “good for them”"

Dragonite, you might be right about "not many", but there sure are some that do

. And though the changes that are being considered, might not actually help Moldova to much, chances would probably increase. Let's remember how Sheriff was knocked out this year? I am sure that Sporting would have been more than happy to get the results Sheriff got against Spartak

On topic, I am sure that everyone is somewhat biased, based on the countries / teams that they like and no matter what changes are made some people will like them, while other will not.

I have to mention that the current year semifinals of both CL and UC have clearly brought the interest of many people down, as there are the national championships to determine, which of the teams are better from a particular country. But to avoid such situations some really drastic changes would be necessary, which I do think cannot happen nowadays.

Author: ikoon
Date: 14-04-2007, 02:53

Just one thing. I'm not "opponent of quality"; that's one of the reason i suggested regional competitions. We already have a western competition (by purely coincidence), i just wish UEFA let other regions make their own competitions and break the monopol over football. It's better a divorce than a "corupt mariage".

I just to point out that what people belive is quality when looking to CL, is just a percent from what can be. Let's be serious, Germany and France are to some distance from top 3. The extreme quality is a league with first 3-4 teams from Spain, England and Italy. More quality matches from the best 3 countries and teams, no surprises and newcomers. Please sustain this and give the rest of us a break.

I personally have nothing against those people who want extreme quality, selective teams; i just wish like others FAs to not be force in this little UEFA economical scheme; i wonder if it doesn't on purpose, to stop teams from other countries to get close to top 5 budgets and to be always a cheap market for players (because you see, those players don't have too many matches in CL ...

). I only wish to be on a regional competition forum discussing about a sport i like (football) about competition and fair rankings, insteed of being here and arguing with different users from top 6 about a drop of fairness and good sense. But, this is the reality, UEFA with Ferguson threats behind and with the desire to keep everything that is called european football in his back pocket keep us in this stinky prison called european "competiton".

Author: Dragonite
Date: 14-04-2007, 13:39

Ikoon,

You don’t have 46 federations fighting for just 9 spots, you are exaggerating things. You have 53 federations fighting for 16 spots.

The first statement assumes every year all the 4 English, 4 Spanish, 4 Italians, 3 French, 3 German, 3 Portuguese and 2 Dutch teams qualify (total 23 teams and just 9 spots for all the others).

You know this isn’t happening! Osasuna (Spain’s 4th), Chievo (Italy’s 4th) and Ajax (Holland’s “2nd”) couldn’t reach the CL this season… the season before, Monaco (France’s 3rd), Sporting (Portugal’s 3rd) and Everton (England’s 4th) couldn’t reach it either.

This could even be improved… instead of 16 CL spots to fight for, there could be 24. It doesn’t make sense to have the runners-up of the top 6 leagues, plus the champions of the 8th and 9th leagues qualifying directly to the CL. They too should be forced to play a qualifier… against teams from the other federations, probably.

Other thing, you make it look as if football was all about money!! No natural talent, not hard work… just money. I don’t know why teams even bother to play; they should just compare the budgets and decide the winner that way!!

If football was all about money, Brazil or Argentina would have never won the World Cup. The USA would have won it some times, England would have won it more than once, and Canada would be an American super power…

You think if teams had access to the CL they would become great because they would get 5 million euros just for playing…

I suppose if an Azerbaijan team reached the CL, the Azerbaijan players wouldn’t suddenly become top players… most likely, with the 5 million euros, the Azerbaijan team would go to Brazil and sign 20 players. Would this “develop” the Azerbaijan football?? Not really. It would just “develop” the bank account of 20 lucky Brazilians.

Other thing, you want teams from many countries to have access to the CL millions, and you want to do that by kicking out the 2nd, 3rd and 4th teams from England, Spain, Italy, Germany, France, Portugal, Holland… Do you think the CL would generate so much money without teams like Real Madrid, Valencia, Arsenal, Liverpool, AC Milan, and Bayern?

About “regional competitions”, nothing forbids countries of doing that!!

There is a regional competition in Scandinavia, called “Royal League”. Top 4 teams from Sweden, Norway and Denmark play it every year. FC Copenhagen won it in 2004/2005 and 2005/2006, and that experience of facing the top teams from Denmark, Norway and Sweden was probably useful for theirs CL qualification this season.

Nothing forbids, for instance, countries like Poland, Bulgaria, and Romania… to create a similar competition between them.

Author: Dragonite
Date: 14-04-2007, 13:59

Ikoon,

Please tell me, which team you support?

I suspect you are so angry about the CL because your team either never qualified for it or qualified a few times but never achieved something significant.

You want your team to qualify for it more times… and once they qualify, you want them to face easier opponents to reach the further stages. Are these your (true) selfish reasons?

As a FC Porto supporter, my team has participated in every CL edition (since 1992/1993) except in 1994/1995, 2000/2001 and 2002/2003… so these subjects never bothered me much.

If Platini idea is just to cut off the 4th team from England, Spain and Italy, it won’t bother me, I think I will even like it!! The Spanish and Italian 4th teams haven’t even qualified this season… and the 4th English team is Arsenal! I don’t even like Arsenal!

If his CL “changes” are JUST these, I’m fine. I won’t be fine if he also wants to start cutting off more teams… such as the Portuguese 3rd. Portuguese teams earned the right to have 3 teams (2+1) in the CL in 2007/2008 and 2008/2009. Any “new rule” that goes against this, I don’t agree with it.

If, in a long term project, they want to start cutting off teams from the top leagues (for instance, in 2008/2009 no more 4th team from the top 3, in 2009/2010 no more 3rd team from the 4th-6th leagues, in 2010/2011 no more 3rd team from the top 3…) and after that even cut off some 2nd teams from lower leagues, perhaps I would even support that, but what I don’t support is to change the rules in the middle of a game- if Portugal earned the right to have 3 teams in the CL in 2007/2008 and 2008/2009, anything that goes against that is illegal.

Author: ikoon
Date: 14-04-2007, 17:47

Yes, my bad. There are 6 FAs which are so competitive that have a maximum 21 CL spots, their runner-up are untouchable playing direct CLGS, and places 3rd and 4th play seeded CLQR3 against a low coefficient opponent and unless are really weak like Osasuna (could be Valencia or Sevilla ) or Chievo (Roma or Lazio) they won't have problem to go to CLGS. For France, Germany and Portugal 3rd place is harder but not impossible to go CLGS. This leaves just 10-11 spots (with or without CL holder) practicaly available for 46 (now 47 FAs).

You know this isn’t happening! Osasuna (Spain’s 4th), Chievo (Italy’s 4th) and Ajax (Holland’s “2nd”) couldn’t reach the CL this season… the season before, Monaco (France’s 3rd), Sporting (Portugal’s 3rd) and Everton (England’s 4th) couldn’t reach it either.

I know what happened and i'm glad. This prooves that first 6 have one extra CL spot, which is not necesarely sustained by league value every year; with all this the top 3 have 4 strong teams that can qualify in CLGS most of the seasons, because those teams have : 1) experience in a strong domestic league and 2) international experience either CL, either UC. That's was the reason for giving top 6 so many spots, to help top leagues improove; but why to see those teams in CLQR3 at all, with great chances to take a CL spot from another team, from another not top 6 country to scor another point agains diversity ???

This could even be improved… instead of 16 CL spots to fight for, there could be 24. It doesn’t make sense to have the runners-up of the top 6 leagues, plus the champions of the 8th and 9th leagues qualifying directly to the CL. They too should be forced to play a qualifier… against teams from the other federations, probably.

No it doesn't make sense at all to have runners-up in CL with direct access; the whole notion of direct access is anti-sportive and anti-competitional, but cuting direct access we will solve the problem only partialy. The top 6 if valuable enough how the direct access wants us to belive will not have big problem qualifying and still taking 2/3 of the CL places and the diversity still remain minimal. More i think that top clubs will rather give up a spot from their FA instead of giving their precious direct access and play even one lotery qualification match and risk a entire CL season. If Arsene Venger and Alex Ferguson (and others more discret) reacted like hooligans to the ideea of a minimal reducing of CL spots, imagin how they will react if puting face to face to the prosppect of qualification rounds. Nobody inside UEFA has even the gut to suggest that.

But this is CL, a private Casino. I don't like it, but the reality is that CL is the bastard son of these top countries and clubs, budgets and influence, greed and unfainess. The dominating word that i can associate with CL is anti fair play, and the fair play is a fundamental part of any sport. Please don't compare Word Cup, even Euro Cup with CL. With minimal exception those competition still have the spirit of sport and diversity is the ruling word. There are not 4 teams of Brasil or Argentine (maby it should be?) and except title holder no direct access. I agree the football quality is not great, the charm of a Word Cup lies elsewhere, in diversity. And this do not stop best countries for winning the trophy, or to have some very intersting (by both diversity and quality) matches in higher stages.

I agree that money from CL will help teams from other countries (the prospect of those money is what keep this unfainess going and the FAs in this top 6 dictatorship); but what helps more is the investments that are made around a club with international experience and the internationam matches.

Each club play for MONEY and fame, this is no big secret and no excuse to mutilate a european competition.

Do you think the CL would generate so much money without teams like Real Madrid, Valencia, Arsenal, Liverpool, AC Milan, and Bayern?

Let's see: FC Barcelona, Real Madrid, FC Sevilla, Manchester Utd, Liverpool, Chealsea, AC Milan, Internationale Milano, AS Roma, Bayern Munich, Werder Bremen, Lyon, Olimpic Marsille, FC Porto, Benfica. A CL with those names will surely generate a lot of money, for those who use this argumenton daily bases. Like you said with only give up to teams like Osasuna, Chievo, ... teams from strong league but with no name, performances or fans in Europe. Really this is not a argument to be weaving for a top 6 spot reduction.

I was not reffering to a JOKE regional competition, a friendly cup a symbol of monarchy. I was reffering to a replacer to the current CL and UC, all FAs organised in 5-6 european leagues on the regional criterium, 5-6 competitions who could find their own sponsors, who create their own fans and to be recognize by UEFA, who could not organise any other paralel european competition, allowing those teams to focus on 2 competitons / season : domestic league and the regional league. But UEFA will never agree to this, or more than that help organise. This cannot be done by few FAs who decide to meet and form a unrecognise competiton and eventually getting suspend in all europeand competiton, even Word and Euro Cup; all FAs must be organise along Europe; this is why UEFA was created, not to be toop 6 puppet.

Please tell me, which team you support?

I suspect you are so angry about the CL because your team either never qualified for it or qualified a few times but never achieved something significant.

You want your team to qualify for it more times… and once they qualify, you want them to face easier opponents to reach the further stages. Are these your (true) selfish reasons?

I support Steaua. Taking in consideration the region where it came, the budget, and the treatment, my team have acomplish great performances in european competitions. Teams like Valencia, Seville, Arsenal, Chealsea, etc. are still to win a Champions league, although we don't have a Champions competition anymore.

I told you what i want, my selfish reasons are my own and your assumptions are ridiculous. I want RESPECT for teams from smaller countries, the same rights like top 6 teams, a representative (european) competition, opponents that actually qualify for CL and restricted to smaller number / country, more champions. People like Platini, who had the smaller FAs support to put in reality his promises, without a Ferguson's shoe threatenig at his head.

If Platini idea is just to cut off the 4th team from England, Spain and Italy, it won’t bother me, I think I will even like it!! The Spanish and Italian 4th teams haven’t even qualified this season… and the 4th English team is Arsenal! I don’t even like Arsenal!

If his CL “changes” are JUST these, I’m fine. I won’t be fine if he also wants to start cutting off more teams… such as the Portuguese 3rd. Portuguese teams earned the right to have 3 teams (2+1) in the CL in 2007/2008 and 2008/2009. Any “new rule” that goes against this, I don’t agree with it.

Now you are selfish. It won't be fair to cut the 4th team from England, Spain and Italy and to keep 3 teams for France, Germany and Portugal. The first 3 and the next 3 are simply not in the same category; the first 3 FAs simply deserve one extra team over next 3. We discuss about how is too much for top 3 to mentain 4 teams, and now you tell me that Sporting from Porugal deserve a 3rd CL spot. Conme on.

Portugal will loose the 6th position and the 3rd team next year anyway; you deserved 3rd spot untill now, after the last 3 years coefficients you do not deserve it anymore.

If, in a long term project, they want to start cutting off teams from the top leagues (for instance, in 2008/2009 no more 4th team from the top 3, in 2009/2010 no more 3rd team from the 4th-6th leagues, in 2010/2011 no more 3rd team from the top 3…) and after that even cut off some 2nd teams from lower leagues, perhaps I would even support that, but what I don’t support is to change the rules in the middle of a game- if Portugal earned the right to have 3 teams in the CL in 2007/2008 and 2008/2009, anything that goes against that is illegal.

Now you are truly selfish. There is no begining and no end to this game. All is middle. The changes that put smaller countries in front of TV were made in middle, the mutation of ECC into this artificial child, CL, were made in the middle, the top 6 countries have cheated in the middle, etc. If you really want begining and end, you may consider the change of UEFA presidency like a begining. I won't enter into a discussion about what Portugal deserve; we had plenty of that. I just want to say about the portughese that they have the tendency to remaind other people how their rise in coefficient is a mistake, is undeserve, they exploited the system, meanwhile Portugal have mentain a 6th posion for a very long time, based on great performances of 1,5 teams and because of that they had 6 teams (3 in CL) and a lot of other weak teams with 0-0-2.0 coefficient every year; and they really want us to belive this is normal. Guys wake up: Sporting is under CL value; Maritimo Funchal, National Funchal, Setubal or Guimaraes don't have european value. Portugal is now to the value of 4 spots, 2 in CL: Porto and Benfica and 2 in UC: Sporting and Braga.

Author: Kaiser
Date: 14-04-2007, 18:17

ikoon

You said that teams from non-top6 take part in CL just for 'international experience.
Not bad at all

. But why do they need experience? Why, ikoon? Only for unsuccessful next year's campaign? Do you really think that these teams pickin' some experience up would seriously compete with Arsenal, Liverpool, etc? It looks like 'losing' experience, indeed. Reducing winning-experienced teams like Sporting, Bordeaux we add losing-experienced teams like... I don't wanna teall their names at the hundredth time. When I was about young, I imagined CL like a inaccessible mountain for really good teams. But what will we have then? Good teams pell-mell bad ones? Funny, indeed

.

Imagine some matches: Dynamo Kyiv - Arsenal, Levski - Bremen. Do you feel the difference? In quality, of course. The CL will always be triumphed by the best European team. And some more else. Imagine uncompetitive groups. Imagined? So imagine games and then count the points. 1st place get 18, 2nd - 12, 3rd - 6, 4th - 0. Funny, indeed. The CL will be easier to imagine than to hold CL matches. No competition, no interest, no money. Good? I doubt.

Then you mentioned you are a fan of Steaua. Let's imagine the way of Steaua this year. 2nd Qualifying round vs Gorica. No comments about Gorica. Then vs Standard. The GS place was guaranteed. Then 4-1 vs Dinamo Kyiv. Respect, indeed. Drippin' with sarcasm. Then matches vs Lyon and Real Madrid. No respect your team indeed for those successful campaign in UC. Don't you see? The UC is created for teams such as Steaua, Olympiacos, Levski and Dynamo. Then WIN in UC. There you are, ikoon. Your replic, please

Author: ikoon
Date: 14-04-2007, 18:54
Edited by: ikoon
at: 14-04-2007, 19:05

But why do they need experience? Why, ikoon? Only for unsuccessful next year's campaign? Do you really think that these teams pickin' some experience up would seriously compete with Arsenal, Liverpool, etc?

I answered already to your DILEMA.

I personaly want to stay far away from those CL cheaters, i don't care for big names or their "artificial quality" football. I really wish a regional competition to watch and pay for.

But as long UEFA keep us togheter, we must learn to compromise. And until now only the small countries had compromised. There is not one single rule made by UEFA in the last 10 years not to benefit top 6 FAs. A line must be drawn somewhere.

About experience, it is a very important part in a succesfull european campaign. If you don't recognise that is not my problem. The experience can lead some teams to chalange the big names, like Arsenal, Liverpool, etc.

The difference in the smaller countries is that for 1 CL spot are big fights between 2-3-4 competitive teams, and you hardly find 1 team to take the CL spot in 2 consecutive seasons and then maby they will stop in CLQR, because of bad luck or another thougher opponent; meanwhile in top countries there are CL spots for every team of CL value, the first 3-4 positions are known from the begining. What are the effects of this? Some potential chalangers from smaller countries play in CL once to 3-4-5 years, ussualy with different team and players that never played a CL match and the lack of continuity and experience lead to unsuccesfull CL campaigns. Meanwhile the top 6 clubs, play yearly, guarantated spot in domestic league, guarantated spot in CLGS, or a good draw with a low coeff in CLQR3 (more of a formality). I hope you can make the distiction between the 2 situations, and this favorable climat for top 6 clubs.

If the 46 FAs are forced into this CL masquerade, more like back players, i want it to look more friendly, fairly and diverse. The gap that have been created, especially between teams from top 3 and others can be reduce if UEFA, Platini and current EXCO withraws some of the undeserve advantages that have been given to top 6 FAs. That's why he is there, to make some justice to football and some "competition" that have been stolen. The FAs voted THE CHANGE, this means that enough is enough. It's a shame that some individuals from top FAs don't let him to exercise his mandate.

Author: moro
Date: 14-04-2007, 19:01

@Kaiser
If (I know, "if" is for losers), but if Steaua could have had a very good day against Real at home, Steaua would have been 2-nd in group!!!
It's a bad attitude to resume the season in CL as "bad" because losing 3 out from 4 games against Lyon and Real.
Next year romanian teams will do better job, I'm confident.

On the other hand, Steaua is out from next CL spot fight (8 points distance from Cluj, impossible to catch). Steaua played very very bad since february.

Author: Kaiser
Date: 14-04-2007, 19:18

Yes, ikoon, yes.

There's a long list of teams worthy to bear their names: Arsenal, Liverpool, Lyon, Bayern Munchen, Chelsea, Manchester United, Werder Bremen, Porto, Benfica, Sporting club of Portugal, Schalke 04, Roma, Internazionale Milan, Juventus, Milan, Barcelona, Real Madrid, Sevilla, Valencia. What names! What history! What power! Do you smell it?

I'm Russian (though not thoroughbred). I'm a fan of Zenit. Though I root for this team, I don't respect it for 'uneurope' and unwin. Do you know its coach. No. But its coach is the famous all over the world Dick Advocaat.

Some words about your Steaua. It's a respectable club with rich history. But I don't slightly remember its European cups over their heads expect the domestic ones. Moreover, I'm a 'bit' of fan of this club and I rooted for it in matches vs Real Madrid and Lyon. But...

Grand total: CL is for clubs from top6 automatically. If you don't touch, think at your leisure. And also let us not to argue. UEFA wouldn't support it

Author: ikoon
Date: 14-04-2007, 19:57

There's a long list of teams worthy to bear their names: Arsenal, Liverpool, Lyon, Bayern Munchen, Chelsea, Manchester United, Werder Bremen, Porto, Benfica, Sporting club of Portugal, Schalke 04, Roma, Internazionale Milan, Juventus, Milan, Barcelona, Real Madrid, Sevilla, Valencia. What names! What history! What power! Do you smell it?

I smell diffrent things, very few good smells, the rest very bad smells, like when it came to italian teams i smell only stink or to see Sporting on that list in make me throw up. No matter, the italians will came back after the "GREAT PENANCE" in Serie B. By the way did you here: another italian scandal concerning 2004-2005 season, with over 14 fixed matches. This is what i smell, coruption and greed.

Grand total: CL is for clubs from top6 automatically. If you don't touch, think at your leisure. And also let us not to argue. UEFA wouldn't support it.

I know, and i have nothing against top 6 clubs to have a competition of their own. But why this whole charade and hipocrisy, why keep under the same wing all FAs to make figuration and most of champions from those FAs to play just 2-4 matches / european season, why the ilusion of diversity. It is not corect and lack of respect for other teams. The top 6 made a competition of their own, CL, and won't let the rest do the same. UC is also crawling with top 6 teams, this is geting frustrating.

Author: Dragonite
Date: 14-04-2007, 22:14

Ikoon, you are a funny guy!

I will tell you why I think you dislike the CL.

In fact, you don’t dislike the Champions League… what you dislike is the Champions League without your team, Steaua.

In 1994/1995, 1995/1996 and 1996/1997 seasons, the CL had just 16 teams, just champions, and Steaua played those editions… the results weren’t great, they never qualified from the group stages… but at least they were among Europe’s “best 16” teams.

In 1997/1998, the CL was expanded to 24 teams, and started to have runners-up. Later it was expanded to 32 teams and some leagues, the top leagues, started to have the 3rd and the 4th teams also participating. During these years, Steaua never again qualified to the CL- they were eliminated in the “qualifying rounds”- that’s why you hate teams who qualify directly!

This season, after a 10 years absence, Steaua was back to the CL… after a UEFA Cup semi final last season, so expectations were high. However, Steaua once again couldn’t get through the group stages, and was smashed a couple of times. They still qualified to the UEFA Cup.

You realized that Steaua hasn’t many chances to do something significant in the CL with the current format- 4 teams from England, Spain and Italy, 3 from France, Germany and Portugal, 2 from Holland, Russia…

So hey!! Suddenly the idea of kicking out of the CL most of these teams is very interesting to you!

I doubt you genuinely care about football in Scotland, Finland, Cyprus… you just want these teams in the CL instead of Real Madrid, AC Milan, Bayern, Arsenal… because at least against these teams Steaua will probably get through a CL group stage!!

I agree with you about Sporting… they don’t have “level” to play the CL- they’ve only played it 3 times, and never qualified from the group stages.

The same could be said about Steaua, though. They only played the CL 4 times, and never qualified from the group stages. They, too, don’t have “CL level”…

If not having “CL level” is an argument to kick a team out of the CL, then Olympiakos would be kicked (never mind they are the CHAMPIONS of Greece), Anderlecht would be kicked…

The 3rd Portuguese spot isn’t for Sporting for “divine right”. This season it seems they will finish 3rd (or top 3), but next season the 3rd spot may be conquered by other Portuguese team- Braga or Boavista are likely candidates.

I have nothing against Steaua, against Romania or against you.

If my countrymen were disrespectful to Romania, I apologise for them. There are good and bad people everywhere, Portugal, Romania, France, Australia, Mexico…

Those disrespectful discussions that happen in this forum, I’m not even used to them… I use to talk about football in the uefa.com forum, which has a moderator. Those kinds of discussions wouldn’t even be published.

Author: ikoon
Date: 14-04-2007, 23:00

@Dragonite, it is still to see if Steaua has CL level or not. I won't be so quick to draw these conclusions after one season in CLGS, with best players injured, the rest at first CL games and a group with Real Madrid and Lyon (who play and win in CL on yearly bases). I think we won our test against Dynamo Kiev with 4/6 points, also a team with superior experience in CL, and made good games in Madrid and Lyon. This is another example of what the experience can do to a team: from defeats at score in Romania, Steaua manage to show a much better football in away games. Of course the injuries continued and Steaua is very close to loose the second CL spot in romanian league this season, and probably will take 1-2 years break before playing again in CLGS. Of course it is not your intention to have a constructive discusion about Steaua or football; you just hope that by questioning my motives for wanting CL more open, diverse and not so boring and money addicted, the ideea will lose its appeal. I don't think so. Maby i should draw you again what i would want to be the spot distribution:

1-2-3 : 3 CL spots (i have mixed feelings about Italy; with the current configuration they deserve only 2 spots; but Juventus and co. comeback they colud have 3 spots)

4-5-6-7-8 : 2 CL spots

9-53 : 1 CL spot

this about maximul allowed CL spots/country, and we reduce the numer of teams from top 6 from 21 to 15; it is a small step but in the right direction, +6 to diversity.

About direct access, this is another story:

1. we could give direct access only to first 16 champions (50%) and made justice to Champions, in a Champions League.
2. we could give direct access to first 8 champions (25%), this means 75% spots available
3. we could eliminate all direct access

It is unfair of you to reduce a discussion of such importance to a country, a team, or a supporter footballistic prefferences, as it is ovious that the effects of these ipotetical changes affect a much larger variety of countries and teams and the appeal of CL itself for many other fans. If you don't want to give me credibility or others who are tired of this 2/3 closed and selective league, then look to the ideology program of the new elected UEFA president and the changes he propose and promise to make.

Comming back to selfisness: you and other top 6 users are SELFISH and GREEDY; you don't even care about quality; this is just a shell you use to justify unfainess and keeping your teams in football elite, spots that rightfully belonged to smaller countries. Now you dance around a corupt system that was build on the dead bodies of many countries with tradition and supporter interes in football, taking advantage of economical and political fluctuations from those countries. You are only interested to destroy, everything that is build in small steps in those countries, just to assure what YOU want to see on TV, a customise competition after the top 6 TV viewers (top 5, excuse me the Portugal has one of the most low contributions to TV rights for CL, you just take from others).

Re: The true reason(s) to change the CL format
Author: Kaiser Date: 14-04-2007, 23:24	ikoon Why words? They are really funny of you funny guy, as Dragonite mentioned. You can, CAN become an UEFA president and change its format. You can also give the automatical spot for Steaua or even send it to final. Why not? Possibilities are only possibilities. And facts are... P.S. I like 'portughese' teams indeed

Re: The true reason(s) to change the CL format
Author: Kaiser Date: 14-04-2007, 23:27	And something more, ikoon. I'm non-top6 user and I like top6 teams and I want them taking part in CL. CL is a 'slippery iceberg' - slip and die.

Author: ikoon
Date: 14-04-2007, 23:58

And something more, ikoon. I'm non-top6 user and I like top6 teams and I want them taking part in CL. CL is a 'slippery iceberg' - slip and die.

Maby you should candidate for UEFA presidency, and put in action your evil plans of top 6 total domination.

You could also try and change your citizenship, as ovious you are a very unhappy russina fan.

I don't want to me mean, but you are probably one of this system victims, as the fading presence of russian teams in CL, you have been force to look somewhere else to see teams that actualy play in CL by regulations. But look to the bright side, maby you will be the next Abramovics. The english football needs more investments now that they are on the edgeof explosion to 6-8 teams in CL.

Author: Kaiser
Date: 15-04-2007, 00:48

ikoon

Do you play FIFA (c/g)? Do you see some mistakes there such as spots (Turkey - 3 CL spots)? Mistake? Of course. Do you see Russian or Romanian league there. Doubt. There are the most popular leagues. Take note.

And I don't want to be either an UEFA president or be like Abramovich. I respect worthy to be respected teams such as Chelsea, etc. They won, win and will win always cause they're the best.

Author: Dragonite
Date: 15-04-2007, 01:09

It’s not my intention to have a constructive discussion about Steaua or football??

Man, I love to talk about football. FOOTBALL is something that barely is discussed around here. You talk about alternative CL scenarios that would suit better your interests; you talk about “conspiracy theories”…

FOOTBALL is to talk about who are the best players, who are the best coaches, who “deserved” to win a certain game (for instance Valencia 1-2 Chelsea)… that is FOOTBALL.

About Steaua, I won’t pretend I’m an expert in Steaua or Romanian football (I’m not)… but I do know some things about them. I know they had a Portuguese keeper, Carlos, who seemed to be guilty of all of bad that happened to them. I know they have a player, Dica, who played well for them in the CL and had already played well for them last season in the UEFA Cup. I know they have a defender, Nicolita, who was very unfortunate to score an own goal away to Real Madrid. Steaua could have drawn that match. I know other players by name, but I don’t know much about them.

If Steaua played the CL more regularly, and/or if the Romania national team played the European or World Cups (like they used to play between 1994 and 2000) I would know more about them.

That spot distribution you suggested, I support it! However, it could only be applied in 2009/2010. The CL spots distribution for next season (2007/2008) is already decided. The CL spots distribution to 2008/2009 will be also decided once this season is over, considering the seasons from 2002/2003 to this one (2006/2007).
Any changes that Platini may apply to the CL format will only be applied by 2009/2010… at best!! I suppose it may take even longer, and only when re-elections approach this subject will become a top priority.

If your CL spots distribution was applied to next season CL, we could have a CL with:

Barcelona, Sevilla, Real Madrid, Inter, Roma, Lazio, Manchester United, Chelsea, Liverpool, Lyon, Toulouse, Schalke 04, Werder Bremen, FC Porto, Benfica, PSV, Ajax, Olympiakos, AEK, CSKA, Dinamo Bucharest, Celtic, Anderlecht, Dinamo Kiev, Slavia Prague, Fenerbahçe, Zurich, Levski, Beitar Jerusalem, Rosenborg, Salzburg and Red Star

The pots distribution would be:

Pot 1: Barcelona, Liverpool, Inter, Real Madrid, Chelsea, Manchester United, Lyon and FC Porto
Pot 2: Sevilla, PSV, Roma, Benfica, Ajax, Werder Bremen, Celtic and Schalke 04
Pot 3: CSKA, Lazio, Olympiakos, Anderlecht, Dinamo Kiev, Levski, Fenerbahçe and AEK
Pot 4: Dinamo Bucharest, Slavia Prague, Rosenborg, Toulouse, Red Star, Zurich, Salzburg and Beitar Jerusalem

Possible groups would be:
Group A: Barcelona, Schalke 04, CSKA, Beitar Jerusalem
Group B: Liverpool, Celtic, Lazio, Salzburg
Group C: Inter, Werder Bremen, Olympiakos, Zurich
Group D: Real Madrid, Ajax, Anderlecht, Red Star
Group E: Chelsea, Benfica, Dinamo Kiev, Toulouse
Group F: Manchester United, Roma, Levski, Rosenborg
Group G: Lyon, PSV, Fenerbahçe, Slavia Prague
Group H: FC Porto, Sevilla, AEK, Dinamo Bucharest

It would still be an interesting competition… there would be more diversity…

The question is how much would people miss teams like Valencia, AC Milan, Juventus, Arsenal or Bayern?

I wouldn’t miss any of them!

Other interesting questions: Would the CL still generate as much money? And the UEFA Cup, with the joining of those “heavyweights”, would it also start generating more money?

Ikoon,

Don’t put Portugal, and most of all, don’t put ME, in the same “bag” you put everybody else.

Those “spots that rightfully belonged to smaller countries”- that never happened!! The old CL had just 16 teams. When it was expanded, “they decided” that the extra 16 teams would be given to more teams from the top countries, INSTEAD of giving those extra 16 spots to teams from smaller leagues.

Re: The true reason(s) to change the CL format
Author: Overgame Date: 15-04-2007, 11:11	"The question is how much would people miss teams like Valencia, AC Milan, Juventus, Arsenal or Bayern?" I'd miss them, a lot ! Milan is 1/2 finalist 4 times in the last 5 editions, Valencia is really a good team. I don't want to lose that much quality to give a few more spots to teams who just try to be 3rd in their group.

Re: The true reason(s) to change the CL format
Author: moro Date: 15-04-2007, 11:57	I would not miss them at all. But almost all those teams are'nt sure at the moment to get the spot next year in CL, so there's still hope...

Author: panda
Date: 15-04-2007, 12:13

I don't think there is any rightful, one way or the other.

But there are two conflicting principles at work - a closed competition is against what most football fans love about football - universality; but a competition with too much diversity risks the big clubs leaving taking with them the TV money, the viewers and the media interest. Already we see that the UEFA cup is a lower priority in a numebr of bigger leagues than getting CL qualification domestically.

The current format may be UEFA's compromise between these two interests / principles.

Morally and romantically, I am sure the arguments on the side of diversity, intergrity of it being a champions competition etc is right. And it is a shame money plays a big part in getting a strong team. In real life, though there are upsets, the big teams win too often for one to have too much diversity without losing quality.

Author: badgerboy
Date: 15-04-2007, 12:23

"Many people are discussing possible changes in the CL format, using arguments such as “diversity”, “develop football everywhere”… very noble reasons. However, I doubt theirs true (main) reasons are so noble.

It is human nature, people are selfish. They think first about what’s good for them, and most of them don’t really care about the others".

For anyone who doesn't know I'm English. I would admit some of my reasons for wanting to maintain four teams for the top countries are selfish. Not for the top teams themselves but to allow the "sub-top" teams from the top countries (and primarily from England where the top four seems most fixed) some hope of reaching the CL and going to places like the San Siro, Nou Camp etc.

I honestly don't believe it should be made easier for a team from say Cluj, Tiraspol or Genk to achieve this objective than one from Bolton or Reading because of geography. Maybe if I came from Tiraspol I might think differently of course. But if my thinking here is selfish it's "subconscious selfishness".

And I think most of my "ideas" try to be balanced. To give a little something (or a little more possibility of something) to everyone.

I like the current CL format & wouldn't be that upset if it remained exactly as is.

But as moro already said I also like the idea of 6 groups of 6. And am outlined it more than once.

I also (after initialling hating it & being incredibly disparaging about it in the Netherlands) quite like the idea of play-offs for the last CL spot in all top 15 countries. Why? Because this is a way of giving more substance to the CL dream of teams from places like Reading & Santander; Kayseri & Odessa. Of course there would be times where this annoyed me - a "traditional big team" coming through the play-offs at the expense of teams I like (Ajax over AZ last year). But overall this would open the dream to more countries.

Apart from the messy format I can also see a case for 48 teams in the groups now. Although here I think groups of 6 are too many - it would have to remain groups of 4. Again to give more teams the chance to "take part". Ferguson's view is that the European season doesn't really start for the big clubs until spring (slightly cheeky given United's elimination last year). But overall it's true that - even with 32 teams a lot of groups are unbalanced. So does it really do any harm to make them just a little bit easier but at the same time open up the competition to a lot more teams?

Author: Kaiser
Date: 15-04-2007, 15:26
Edited by: Kaiser
at: 15-04-2007, 16:18

We are like chalk and cheese, badger. Let's begin a quiz - Which clubs do you want to see in CL?

Then, badgerboy, tell me please which team you are a fan of? I really want to know.

This situation: 'bad team' had reached the CL. With Werder, Internazionale and Lyon it got to the group H. Funny situation, isn't it? It looks like Levski this season earning zero points. Mash, bash, crush, storm, slaughter, thunder and difference is nearly -30. The CL is collapsingn in our sight.

My suggestion: 16 groups of 4. Then is your topic 'LPTCL' I'll show that it's the best way out.

Author: badgerboy
Date: 15-04-2007, 16:06

"We are like chalk and cheese, badger. Let's begin a quiz - Which clubs do you want to see in CL?"

I wanted call that a "quiz" & nor do I think it necessary to hijack this topic but...

Like you - I think - I want to see "the best" teams in the Champions League but - as I've said many times - I also like unfashionable teams. It's almost perfect for me personally to have the 4 English teams you have now +1 (so you have all the quality plus one "wildcard" that I would follow with most interest at the group stage). But (CL & maybe UEFA Cup holders aside) I'd generally agree that 4 teams is enough - so if you make a play-off it possibly takes away one team of the highest quality but gives so many more teams the chance. A "compromise" on quality that might add a lot of "diversity".

From other countries a lot of teams I "dislike" at the group stage (Anderlecht, Olympiakos) I would probably like at the next level - last 16+ because they would be "new faces" at that stage. But because these teams play the group stage year after year & do nothing I'm far more interested in seeing for example Standard Liege, Slovan Liberec, any Polish team... at that stage. Because even if these teams are a little bit inferior to the Anderlecht's etc. they replace it's still something slightly different and you're not actually removing teams of a really high quality.

Author: Kaiser
Date: 15-04-2007, 16:58

badgerboy

You can also see diversity at the Quarterfinal stage. Only Milan reached the Quarterfinal from all the Quarterfinalists last year.

Barcelona - 1/8 - Liverpool
Arsenal - 1/8 - PSV
Villareal - Intertoto Cup - Maribor (even losed in UIC)
Lyon - 1/8 - Roma
Benfica - 3rd place in CL group - Man. United, Celtic
Internazionale - 1/8 - Valencia
Juventus - even didn't reach the zone Eurocups cause of corruption

We see diversity there but not observe it. I know you're tired of watching teams from the same countries especially from England, patriot. I am not.

You talked I like 'named' teams. I don't. 'Like' and 'respect' are different things, you know it. For you I say I respect them not like. Moreover I hate some of them. And some includes the most titled European team (you know it). And I like Austria, Steaua, Galatasaray but don't respect them.

About 20 Brazilians and team from Azerbaijan. Weak teams don't play well cause of coaches. If those 20 Brazilians were coaches of that Azerbaijan team, I think this teams Would not only reache the CL GS but the 1/8

Author: ikoon
Date: 15-04-2007, 17:47
Edited by: ikoon
at: 15-04-2007, 18:04

Panda wrote:
The current format may be UEFA's compromise between these two interests / principles.

Far from it. A compromise would be nice, between diversity and quality, between money and competition, between top 6 and the rest. When you speak about compromise, i could only think that top 6 FAs should have no more than 50% of CL places (16) and the rest, 47 FAs should have at least 50% of CL places (16). This is a solution which i proposed in various topics, and also something close to Platini intentions. It would be a slight modification to the current formats, with no serious effect regarding quality (assuming that only top 6 could provide it) and extra new 6 faces that we would (no could) see in CLGS every year. This also will assure in each group 2 top 6 teams versus 2 non top 6 teams. It's a pertinent compromise in my opinion. But i beg you to reveal the points, where top 6 understand to COMPROMISE; at least give me something in the last 10 years: a UEFA decisions, a format, etc. that affects the top 6 interests in a negative way.

About the solutions that promote more than 32 teams or groups larger than 4 teams, i think that are unrealistic but not necesarely unwelcome. It's hard to belive that these new formats, will increase money from TV rights, and the "big names" will end up with more games and the same money, something unacceptable for their exclusive financial existence.

Dragonite wrote:
The question is how much would people miss teams like Valencia, AC Milan, Juventus, Arsenal or Bayern?"

Depends what you understand by "people". Of course their fans will miss them, and other "people" will say they miss them only to bring a hard to proove argument, or to sustain it.

But the reality is a little different, and you just reveal one of your (true) reasons for mentaining the CL format, and if i may say a hidden desire for a closed league and also everything that is wrong about CL. CL is not a competiton of teams, it is a league of "names". There are no objective reasons to miss some names that don't manage to qualify in their domestic league, in a european competiton of teams (that promote quality?, how many people say); of course there are the subective reasons that makes one to miss a team, even one suspended or penalised for anti-sport actions and other ilegal indicments that came against the civil and penal law. But the question is then, how a "name" that finished in its league behind other (a better team) could bring more QUALITY to CL. It can't.

More than that, you cannot miss something that you never had. The teams from non top 6 countries, are not generaly missed, by top 6 fans for ovious, objective (not many matches in CL, so no many performances, part because of these formats) and subjective reasons (preffering teams from the same country or region, instead of some strangers, unknown, unpopular). Often, a top 6 user, will tell you the name of a player that plays in your country, taking a lot of pride in that, some serious football culture he has; if he knows a team that didn't play in Europe for a long time, he even wants some kind of medal. This limitation is another result transforming a competision into a monster league, anti-football. Even UEFA Cup was crippled beyond repair.

Everything that CL stands for, came with a too higher price, and the football is stoped from evolving because of the current CL; too many teams and countries and competitons are put it in stand-by and sacrificed ony for the wealth of very few teams from only 6 countries, or maby just 5, 6th being more of a little bone for the rest.

Author: badgerboy
Date: 15-04-2007, 17:52

"You can also see diversity at the Quarterfinal stage".

I observe it & I'm quite happy with it. I'd also be happy (maybe happier?) to see teams from different countries at that stage but only if they are good enough . In other words - by the quarter-finals I only want high quality teams left - not teams from 6, 7 or 8 different countries that only make it because you take out all the decent competition.

Author: panda
Date: 15-04-2007, 17:58

@kaiser

Badgerboy supports Brighton and Hove albion. have you even heard of them? They are currently 16th in the third tier of English football.

@ikoon

compromise? well, of course different people will argue about what is a 'fair' compromise. But since domestic TV revenue plays so big a part, even if you even it up between the number of participants from countries a LOT more, the top 3 leagues will still be the strongest, because they will still be able to attract the best players. I don't see a solution that will satisfy everyone.

Author: badgerboy
Date: 15-04-2007, 18:43
Edited by: badgerboy
at: 15-04-2007, 19:44

"But the question is then, how a "name" that finished in its league behaind other, better teams could bring more QUALITY to CL. It can't".

I don't believe in "names" either but - although I hope (or hoped - it's impossible now) for either Bolton or Tottenham to take our 4th CL spot from Arsenal I still wouldn't say that one of them finishing ahead of Arsenal in the league one season would automatically make them a better team in the following season. Reaching the last 16 next year would be a good achievement for either Bolton or Tottenham (maybe, just maybe quarters for Tottenham) but Arsenal would still expect to be a contender to win it.

As Everton finished 4th ahead of Liverpool when Liverpool won the CL - Liverpool were still much better the next season.

As I have no doubt Sevilla would've been better (just possibly a serious contender) than Osasuna this year.

As Cluj might well finish ahead of Steaua this year in Romania but I'd still expect (though I might be wrong) that Steaua would have much greater potential to make an impact in the Champions League next year if they were there.

That's the "economics" of football that is as real in Romania - & every other "non top 5" country - as it is in England. Smaller teams might exceed expectations for a limited period but eventually "normal order will be restored" - the successful small team will lose their best players to the wealthier "underachievers".

That's one thing I could see in favour of expanding the group stage. You could give more teams "direct access" meaning that teams that did manage to "overachieve" one season would get a tangible reward the following year - rather than simply reaching the qualifiers, being unseeded & losing.

Even going to 64 teams:

CL Holder (or extra team from country of CL Holder)
UEFA Cup Holder (or extra team from country of CL Holder)
1-4 4 teams (4th team from winner of play-offs teams 4-7)
5-8 3 teams (3rd team from winner of play-offs teams 3-6)
9-16 2 teams (2nd team from winner of play-offs teams 2-5)

Only one qualifying round is needed. For Champions of countries from 17-52. 36 teams with the 18 winners entering the groups.

Suddenly the dream of playing CL football (going to the Nou Camp etc) is open for pretty much everyone. You have a lot of very easy group games for the big clubs - but to be honest you already have those. And you have a last 32 rather than a last 16 - and just as a last 16, compared to a second group stage, made it a bit easier for teams like Porto & Monaco to go much further so perhaps would a last 32 for other teams. Perhaps also - because there are only 12-14 really "big" clubs the battles for second place in a lot of the groups would be very interesting. The big problem here might be that the big clubs qualify so easily that the match order (they put out weakened teams in their last matches) has too much of an impact.

Author: moro
Date: 15-04-2007, 19:03

Badgerboy - a little correction requested, Romania is anything but a little country - 23 millions.
If you put 5 teams from England and 5 from Spain, is almost a league. I dont see any interrest to put more teams from a country into CL, why not put first 3 (or 2, why not 2) in CL and 3 or 4 in Uefa. Having as result a very strong Uefa Cup, you just have to adjust the format of the competition. Instead one CL involving year after year same teams, watched with the heart from KO stage only by same 16 teams, you'll have twice the menu.
Italy is no longer a "big". I saw games from Serie A, it sucks seriously. I'd put 3 teams from England and Spain, 2 from Italy, France, Germany and Portugal directly in Gs together with many champions, and second ranked from "little" countries to fight for some extra places.
And let's put maximum 6 teams per country in both competitions.

Author: Overgame
Date: 15-04-2007, 19:21

"I saw games from Serie A, it sucks seriously."

You've discovered the Calcio last year ? Seriously, you should, perhaps, try to watch old games from the Calcio ... In the last ten years, the Calcio has not really changed, with many games very defensive.

Spain has no team left in the semi-final of CL and Italy has one team left, while 2-3 big names are missing with the scandal (Juventus, Lazio and Fiorentina). Let's switch Chievo with Lazio, Parma with Fiorentina and Empoli with Livorno, i don't see a loss in quality, and they're not really weaker than Osasuna, Espanyol or Celta Vigo.

In term of pure results (this year ONLY), Italy is a bit weaker, but, as i said, with 3 big names missing, that's easily understandable.
Let's remove Manchester, Chelsea and Arsenal from England, Real Barcelona and Valencia from Spain, and go compare.

Re: The true reason(s) to change the CL format
Author: badgerboy Date: 15-04-2007, 19:43	"Badgerboy - a little correction requested, Romania is anything but a little country - 23 millions". Moro - an apology if I must (rolleyes). I thought I'd been posting here long enough for people to know by "small country" I only mean "non-top 5" in purely footballing terms. Careless language though. So I'll amend.

Re: The true reason(s) to change the CL format
Author: moro Date: 15-04-2007, 22:28	Badgerboy Overgame - since when Lazio and Fiorentina are big teams ???? We're all waiting the comeback of Juve, we're missing blind penalties and offside goals awarded in last minutes. Ok, AC Milan is there to remember us thiefs are still promoted in this world, but they are way behind Juve. "Big" is the adjectiv, but you must put "stealers" instead of "teams". There you have the correct phrase.

Re: The true reason(s) to change the CL format
Author: Overgame Date: 15-04-2007, 23:17	moro : you've discovered football one year ago, i will forgive your ignorance.

Re: The true reason(s) to change the CL format
Author: Kaiser Date: 15-04-2007, 23:40	Let's vote for the future place of Juventus in Serie A in 2007/08. I'm for the 4th

Author: dinamo_fan_4_ever
Date: 16-04-2007, 01:45

my option for a new UCl is diversity.

i would like former title holders like: red star, steaua, OM, dortmund be invited, not every year but once in a while. it would be a incredible gesture from UEFA.
there were big teams like leeds, nothingam forrest etc. that would come againt to be heard of. why not invite them .. last pot with 0 chances to qualify but the chance to play gainst milan or barcelona.

i would like to see 7 teams/ group and 2 advancing; with alternate home/away total of 6 games like in the uefa cup.

just imagine a groups with:

UTD, Schalke, Fiorentina, Feyenoord, Fenerbahce, Rangers, Red star
Chelsee, Werder, AZ, olympiakos, Sahtior, Anderlecht, Salzburg
Milan, Liverpool, Ajax, deportivo, Celtic, Panathinaikos, CSKA MOscow
Bacelona, O.M., Bayern, Galatasaray, Lazio, Basel, Levski
Werder, AS Roma, PSV, Lille, Steaua, Sporting, Sparta Praga
Arsenal, Inter, Benfica, Lens, Zaragoza, Standard, Spartak
Real, juventus, Porto, bordeaux, stuttgart, Dinamo, Maccabi Haifa
Lyon, Sevilla, tottenham, kiev, hamburg, Rosenborg, Leeds

Author: Kaiser
Date: 16-04-2007, 07:52

I think it's a rash idea. I know Nottingham Forest is one of the titled team of CL. But Champions League is called 'Champions' for about best teams all over Europe, not the shadows of the past winners.

Besides, any countries at any time can create regions CL, for example Scandinavia, Balcans, Mediterranean, CIS and so on. Why not? A club wants to play in CL very much but can't cause of lack of strength. Instead of poor CL campaign the club (Levski, Dynamo Kyiv) can take part in regional CL. Maybe not 'moneily' but CL after all.

Re: The true reason(s) to change the CL format
Author: moro Date: 16-04-2007, 08:43	Overgame, as usual, you're extraordinary bright. Dont they call you "the brain" at school?

Re: The true reason(s) to change the CL format
Author: Kaiser Date: 16-04-2007, 09:20	Don't argue! I thought this topic called 'The true reason(s) to change the CL format' not 'argument between moro and Overgame'. For sure I was wrong...

Author: cska
Date: 16-04-2007, 12:12

Hi friends,

This topic prooved to be very interesting. What I expected to see and actually saw is that your opinions, just like the opinions of most football fans in the world, tend to outline one typical bias - the bias of people from "non-top" countries and the people from "top" (3,5,7,10, etc.) countries.
Many years ago, a famous Bulgarian poet wrote a fairy-tale named "A Fairy-Tale of the Stairway to Heaven". I will not write it in full, but in just few sentences you will see how it describes perfectly also the sentiments for the changes in CL format.
So... (briefly described)
There was a huge crowdof poor and miserable people, who were protesting against the power of the Princes in the Heavenly Tower. And among the poor, there was one brave enough person to attack the stairway to the ceiling of the tower, where the rich and powerful princes lived. To everyone, who asked him "Who are you?", he replied "I am poor and all the poor and neglected people are my brothers."
He ran up the stairs, but suddenly, the Devil stood in his way up. The Devil asked him "Who are you?". He replied as he always did.
The Devil told him "I can't let you go for free. Give me your ears. I'll replace them with new, better ears. And you can go on." The hero agreed. And then he started to hear not the moans and the protests of the poor, instead he was hearing songs of happiness and praising of the princes. The Devil stood on the next floor. He asked him for his eyes now and he promised new better eyes as a replacement. The hero agreed and instead of poorness, misery and disgrace, he started to see how the poor fellows actually lived well in comfort and happiness. On the last-but-one floor, the Devil asked "Who are you?". The hero said "I am poor and all the poor and neglected are my brothers". The Devil finally asked him for his heart and promised a new, better heart. The hero was on the last step and agreed to pay the price. And then, he entered the big hall, where the princess were having their lunch. They asked him "Who are you?". And he replied... "Oh, I am a prince, and all the mighty and graceful princes are my brothers..."
This story depicts very well many typical things about human nature. Among all, it describes people's attitudes towards the CL format.
When one is from a low ranked country, he normally wants more CL spots and more chances to get GS spots. When his country climbs up and reaches the heaven, one normally thinks "Oh, why should we change the format. CL is now perfect for our teams". When one is poor, he may feel compassionate to the other poor. When he gets rich, I would not say that he will be so interested or compassionate to the poor any longer.
So, it's normal that the views on the CL format depend on the floor in the ranking tower your country occupies.

Kindest regards to all,
Milen.

Author: moro
Date: 16-04-2007, 12:14

Nobody's arguing here, I mean to argue it needs at least two people, I'm not arguing, so if someone does it does it alone. It's somehow like sex.
However, if somebody feel the need to argue, it would'nt be very intelligent to open a topic like "moro vs Overgame", dont you think Kaiser? It would be nicer to open a topic simply called "argue here" - this way we'll have less superior people to abuse us as "hey, once again you're off-topic"...

Re: The true reason(s) to change the CL format
Author: panda Date: 16-04-2007, 15:17	@cska congratulations on this unbelievably good post!!

Author: dinamo_fan_4_ever
Date: 16-04-2007, 15:29

KAISER WROTE:
"I think it's a rash idea. I know Nottingham Forest is one of the titled team of CL. But Champions League is called 'Champions' for about best teams all over Europe, not the shadows of the past winners."

its called 'champions" league but 3rd and 4th teams participate. not to mention 2nd ones. if it would habe been "G16 league" it would be logicaly OK.

if they call it champions league than something must be done to see more champions in the league. HOW many former champions are in the semifinals? -- 1/4 in the quarters? -- 3/8. i really dont see it as a champions league. but more a "budget champions" league. again nothing to complain, theese are the best teams in europe, they can end 4th in the premiership and win the UCL by example.

i will never say; no more 3rd, 4th from spain or england becasue its not fair. arsenal would surely win any championship from 10 to 52, so would probably valencia or sevilla. they belong in UCL becasue they are potencialy champions thats why.

my ideea is to ad some more teams. keep theese ones and add another 24 teams that are champions ore vice chapions; fc copenhaga, rosemborg, fenerbahce, Rangers, Sparta, etc...

a 4 team group with 2 teams like chelsee/barca or chelsee/ liverpool etc. has no stake, NO STAKE ! there are few chances for the 3rd team to qualify while the top 2 order in the group is irrelevant and purely doesnt matter because both are of almost same value. than why see a chelsee - barca AND a barca - chelsee on afer another !!!!!!

this what i want:

chelsee , barcelona, Lazio, Ajax, Shalke 04, Rangers, Fenerbahce

and a draw:

chelsee-barca/lazio-fener/ajax-rangers/shalke-bye
fener-chelsee/rangers-lazio/shalke-ajax/barca-bye
chelsee-rangers/barca-shalke/ajax-lazio/fener-bye

etc.

with top 2 going in the UCl and 3rd and 4th in the UC

and about inviting not. forest, red star, OM, steaua etc. (even leeds) i repeat. it would be a noble gesture from UEFA. they are FORMER CHAMPIONS OF EUROPE, and should be shown some respect. even if they dont qualify they would get some money and the chance to play where they once were. the impact on the fans all over europe would be huge.

format:

7x8 = 55 spots + TH. of which:

15-18 champions of the top 15-18 confederations
1-2 wild cards for former title holders taht didnt qualify. randomly given.
2nd spot from top 8 confederations.
3rd spot teams from top 4 confederations.
24-26 teams from a qualifing round.

Author: ikoon
Date: 17-04-2007, 00:37

i will never say; no more 3rd, 4th from spain or england becasue its not fair. arsenal would surely win any championship from 10 to 52, so would probably valencia or sevilla. they belong in UCL becasue they are potencialy champions thats why.

I don't agree. Why is not fair?

Probably more that 4 teams from top countries, will cause serious problems if playing in weaker leagues. So what? This means we let England and Spain with 10 teams? From when a european competition has became a "free for all" competition? The definition of a european competiton, it a competiton where the BEST teams from EACH country are allow in. So don't simply invent staff, like : the best teams from Europe, from no matter what country because this is not the spirit and reason of a competiton. Why to make a european competion otherwhise? Each of the top country has his own league or cup, where the fans can see 4 english/spanish/italian teams that fight for championship or cup. If you want european football, you want diversity first of all and around this diversity you look for quality matches. I have no doubt that in CL superior stages (after groups) the best teams will qualify, so it's not a problem of lack of quality matches.

In a league like EPL, one of the first 4 teams plays with at least 10 teams (20 matches/season) boring and predictable matches, as difference of value, but the english FA didn't make EPL of 8 teams to offer to english viewers the best of quality, instead is a league with 22 teams, if i'm not mstaken the most teams a first league has in Europe.

It is very FAIR and specific to a inter-countries-teams competition, a line have to be drawn somewhere, no matter of quality of each league; in this case the line have been drawn to HIGH; to offer the possibilty to some (3) countries to have in 1/2s only teams from the same country it ovious a opposite result of the reason for which european competitons exists.

You can be as subjective as you want and the TV reveune as important as it is, but this is ovious a exageration. Not even "G14 league" don't offer such many spots to a country, not to mention that if one looks over the list of G14 founder members they are far from the best european teams today.

Finaly, i want to point out the the current CL is WORST that any close between top countries that can be created. If a closed league were to be created, then the specific league is not my problem anymore, as do not concern all the fans that don't have representative teams in that league. Meanwhile the CL format keeps most of the countries tied up to their own economical and infrastructural problems, tide up to a minimal representation, mostly in QRs. It is ovious for everyone, that the "brains" behaind G14 project, have found the biggest opposition in their own countries, many competitive teams or with high finacial expectations, that want now to profit from the money that generaly G14 clubs produce, from transforimg their teams in international mercenaries.

Re: The true reason(s) to change the CL format
Author: Kaiser Date: 17-04-2007, 00:58	I have a mad idea Why don't they make both CLs opened one and closed one? And both winners take part superfinal? UEFA wouldn't support us arguing. So qualitative CL is for such clubs as (not only grandees but) Tottenham, Palermo, Schalke. And the diverse one for Austria, Gorica, Apollon, Djurgaarden and so on. What can you say about that?

Author: ikoon
Date: 17-04-2007, 00:58

For those who speaks about the current CL format like a some sort of compromise, i just want to say, that the real compromise is the creation of a G14 league like, itself. It is a compromise, because all parties get most of what they want, a divorce, "big clubs" more money (maby) and the rest, more competiton and the better of the rest, maby more money then (than now).

To put i the same cage 21 individuals with semi-automatic guns and 11 individuals with knives and baseball bats it anything but compromise.

Author: dinamo_fan_4_ever
Date: 17-04-2007, 01:03

ok, i tried to get your ideea of diversity. i proposed diversity also but at a different level.

can you explain something?: (just imagine the format: Barca,UTD,Inter,Lyon,Werder,Porto,PSV,........Anderlecht.....Levsky.....Artmedi
a......Sheriff.... Baku ..)

if you take out 2nd, 3rd , 4th spots from top countries and get a "rich soup" with everyone in it, WHERE WILL THE MONEY COME FROM ?????????? do you know what will happen than?

1st probable. you wont see any new names in the semifinals but surely you can catch fenerbahce or olimpiakos or steaua in a quarter.

2nd probable. there will be even less money for the ones that need it.

3rd probable. the rest of the top teams would ceate theyr own league,(lets call it "G Cup") in which surely teams like steaua, sahtior, red star, anderlecht wont be accepted.

4th probable. the top 6-8 champions would leave the UCL and go in the
new created G Cup

.

finally the UCL would be: Anderlecht, Steaua, Olimpiakos,Fener,Sparta ....copenhaga.....artmedia.....pyunik.....baku.....

Author: ikoon
Date: 17-04-2007, 01:15
Edited by: ikoon
at: 17-04-2007, 01:24

if you take out 2nd, 3rd , 4th spots from top countries and get a "rich soup" with everyone in it, WHERE WILL THE MONEY COME FROM ?????????? do you know what will happen than?

Where did you came up with that? Everything in small steeps; i surely don't want to handicap the precious CL. I just said that that the top 6 countries should have 1 LESS spot in CL for now; I tell you what i want to take out: Osasuna (Spain), Chievo (Italy), Arsenal (England), Lense (France), Stuttgart (Germany), Sporting (Portugal). These are few teams that are now, or finished last year in the last CL spots.

You would say that Milan is now on 4th, but with a huge starting penalisation; maby in a normal Serie A season, Milan will catch 1-3 spots and from England just one of 3 competitve teams. I don't think that people (or Media trust) will pay less because we don't see Osasuna, Chievo, Stuttgart, Lens, Sporting or Arsenal.

I have no doubt that the top 6 media trusts will pay even more to see lets see: 8 CL spots from each England, Spain, Italy, the chance to see begining with 1/4s only teams from one country. What should we do? Should we gave the top 3 viewer what they want? Should a victory in CL groups worth 2 mil euros and a draw 1 mil? That's why we had breakes (2 kinds) to a car, we can't let all cars go with 200 km/h, even if the can go further, because ther is at least the eviroment that must be protected.

Author: ikoon
Date: 17-04-2007, 01:51
Edited by: ikoon
at: 17-04-2007, 02:07

Why don't we have a english refferee at a game between Liverpool and Maccabi Haifa? Is very probably that Liverpool will win, so why do we have a reff that is not from any of the two countries? Could it be because the english reff can make some subjective decisions?

Why don't 2 teams, Liverpool and another team from Israel (ex.) must play 2 rounds one in Israel and one in England, and the 2 matches are not played both in England; it is likely like Liverpool will win anyway, so why this rule?

If these 2 examples are really understood for what they are, then we also answer to the dilemma that the different money contributions from different conutries must be taken for what they are. If you want to see domestic teams (a lot of them) then you pay the domestic league; if you want to see european matches (a lot of them) then you pay a the organiser of a european competiton. I don't really care what some media trust from England, Spain, etc. pays, or that x top club win 100.000 - 200.000 europ less / CL game.

If we keep up this line, in the future we will have very subjective and rich fans, that will pay Chealsea (for example) more than what the club actualy win from CL, just NOT to play in CL.

An one more thing, there is no law, defined by "reality" (as opposed to "romance") that say that if X team have the right to buy a refferee because has a better budget, as is no rule that say that a team with a higher budged will win a match with a team with a lower budget, as the current CL format, allowing 21/32 teams from only 6 countries is not defined by reality, but by fiction and by abuse (over not influential and strong economical countries). The reality don't tell a strong economical country that have the right to invade other country, only its deamons.

As economy and sport remain 2 different branches, any use of the first one to destroy the second one has no justification in "reality", how generaly english users imply. The money helps the sport, the budged of a team is fundamental for his performances, but when this budged is used over this local border, to influence the competitons format itself, to procure anti-sportive advantages over other competitors, then we don't have reality anymore, we have fiction and abuse.

Re: The true reason(s) to change the CL format
Author: Kaiser Date: 17-04-2007, 02:03	ikoon Tell us straightly - what do you want? Sleep on it - my suggestion

Author: Agent327
Date: 17-04-2007, 07:11

With the proposals as stated by different persons in the UEFA organisation there seems to be a development towards a true European league. It's funny to see that the devaluation of the Cup in the top ranked countries would have such an impact.
The top 6 countries are focussing on qualifying for CL, rather than the cup. Even the play-offs in Holland is in a way influencing the Cup aspirations.
Every development in creating more places for the top ranked countries ultimately leads to the development of an European league.

But, to return to the question of true reasons of changing the format.
It all has to do about money. Now I'm not saying this is a bad development.
Trouble is that much depend on the TV market pool from your own country. By this the amount of money divided among the teams will always be higher in 'rich' countries.
So, to decrease the power of those teams (TV money wise) you should let more teams from those countries play in the CL!
More teams from those countries would mean less TV money for each team apart, because there are more heads to feed.

Another problem for most is not the diversity in teams, it's the diversity in countries people complain about.
But that raises the next question: Which teams qualify for CL from the countries ranked 7 or lower. Many countries has the same teams on top year after year.
For Example:
PSV, Ajax
Olympiakos, Panathinaikos, AEK Athens
Dynamo Kiev, Shaktar Donetsk
CSKA Moscow
Fenerbahce, Besiktas, Galatasaray
Anderlecht, Club Brugge
Glasgow Rangers, Celtic
Sparta Praha
(Sorry if I didn't mention your team as a CL regular)

Looking at top ranked countries, which teams qualify for the CL (Q3 or GS) the past 6 years (this is when England replaced Germany as a top 3 country)

Spain 	
---------
Real Madrid     6
FC Barcelona    5
Dep. La Coruña  4
Valencia        3
Celta de Vigo   1         	
Villarreal      1
Real Betis      1         	
Real Sociedad   1         	
Real Mallorca   1         	
Osasuna         1

England	
----------
Arsenal           6
Manchester United 6
Liverpool         5
Chelsea           4
Newcastle United  2
Everton           1

Italy	
--------
AC Milan        5
Internazionale  5
Juventus        5
AS Roma         4
Lazio Roma      2
AC Parma        1	
Udinese         1
Chievo Verona   1

As you can see, there is plenty diversity around, maybe England is the only exception.
So, IMHO the allocations of 4 teams for top countries & 3 teams for the countries just below the top is sufficient for me, especially if CUP winners could participate in some way or the other.
(I have an idea worked out for a new format, but that belongs in another topic)

Greetz,
Agent327

Author: badgerboy
Date: 17-04-2007, 11:04

"So, to decrease the power of those teams (TV money wise) you should let more teams from those countries play in the CL!
More teams from those countries would mean less TV money for each team apart, because there are more heads to feed".

"Which teams qualify for CL from the countries ranked 7 or lower. Many countries has the same teams on top year after year".

Both very good points. I wouldn't use the first as an argument for increasing the number of teams from the top countries. But - as I've mentioned before - if you actually take out teams from the top countries the chances are that current "semi-regulars" (Shakhtar, Fenerbahce, Rangers, AEK Athens etc.) just become regulars. The top countries have to split their "market share" three ways rather than two so at least two clubs get even richer than they are now. And in other countries the same teams get even more regular CL money & hence become more dominant in their own league. More imbalance.

Going back to the "self-interest" point at the heart of this topic though. I suspect ikoon doesn't spend much time on Romanian forums complaining about the unfair financial distribution there & insisting that - if Steaua should qualify for two or three CL group stages in a row they really should share the money they make with the rest of the teams in Divizia A. Or perhaps suggesting that there should be a cap of two teams per city in the top domestic division so that the other 41 Romanian counties have a better chance of being represented at the highest level.

"The definition of a european competiton, it a competiton where the BEST teams from EACH country are allow in. So don't simply invent staff, like : the best teams from Europe, from no matter what country because this is not the spirit and reason of a competiton. Why to make a european competion otherwhise?"

Contrary to the "romantic illusion" that the European Cup was created in order to "give everyone a game" it's true purpose has always been about deciding "the best" in Europe. The following from Andrew Godsell's book: "Europe United - A history of the European Cup/Champions League". After Wolverhampton Wanderers beat Honved of Hungary in December, 1954 their manager Stan Cullis proclaimed them "...the champions of the world".
Gabriel Hanot in L'Equipe responded: "We must wait for Wolves to visit Budapest and Moscow before we proclaim their invincibility. There are other clubs of international prowess, like Milan and Real Madrid. There is a strong case for starting a European championship for clubs".

Even back then the initial idea was for a midweek league - but the clubs preferred a cup due to fears of fixture congestion. That's one "issue" that doesn't seem to have changed in the last 50 years...

In the modern age it's pretty clear that the top countries have a number of teams who might vie for the title: "best in Europe" (indeed "best in the World" since European teams steal the best players from everywhere else as early as possible) so it's not unreasonable - as an extention of the original premise for the competition - that they might have as many teams as they do.

Re: The true reason(s) to change the CL format
Author: ignjat63 Date: 17-04-2007, 12:10	What completely ruins CL for me is that it is not a competition any more but money making bussiness. So as long as money is the top priority there it is useless to talk about improving the "competition". The sport motive is long gone and I am watching CL with different eyes than say 15 years ago. The magic is long gone for me.

Author: ignjat63
Date: 17-04-2007, 12:20

If we are talking money then of course top countries should have more participants than low ranked countries. But if we are talking "competition" then I see no reason for not going back to "only the champion per country". Otherwise the competition does not make sense. But making money does.

In the old UEFA cup days the most successful countries had more teams in UEFA cup. That was not fair either.

Just my humble oppinion.

Author: Lyonnais
Date: 17-04-2007, 12:58

Well, I don't really see why it would be unfair that some countries have more teams than others.

For the World Cup, Europe's representation (roughly 1/2) is much higher than European weight (roughly 1/4). Is it unfair?
I hear more people complaining about the decreasing (relative) weight of Europe rather than people requesting Europe's representation be capped to 8 countries only.

And why are Europe and South Amercian over-represented in the World Cup? basically because European and South Americans teams are in average better than their counterparts.

I don't say that this is the only possible solution, but it doesn't seem to me unfair that Europe and South American get over-represented in the World Cup. Is it only a money issue?

Coming back to the European Cups, is it unfair that Spain, England and Italy are over-represented in the Champions League?
It's not only a question of money, it's also a question of performances.

Author: moro
Date: 17-04-2007, 13:20

Lyonnais, maybe in WC there's also question of number of players affiliated to federations, not only about quality of teams.

I find very unfair the huge difference between money earned in Uefa Cup (next to zero, sometimes under the line for many teams) and those in CL. There's the problem. That's why I think, as I said yesterday, that we should reduce the number of teams from countries with 3-4, and put them in Uefa, to raise the level, and the interres for the competition. And of course, put much more money in Uefa.

Author: panda
Date: 17-04-2007, 13:41

There are several threads running at the moment on this theme, which is topical every year. I can see that allowing the big countries fewer teams in the CL would raise the standard of the UC; the problem still arises of the gap between the best teams and the rest - this year, Sevilla and Werder Bremen do seem superior to the rest; a UC where there were a few teams much stronger than the rest might be just as unsatisfactory as the present gap.

Author: Ricardo
Date: 17-04-2007, 13:49

As one on the more diversity front I still have anpther option open: why not have the CL as a league for the best teams of Europe, maybe even 5 from a country.
And next to that the Champions CUP, a simple knock-out based competition, where only champions can play in. Starting with 53 champions. 11 get a bye in the first round and then in 6 rounds (do they have to be double?) a champion of champions is there...
(I'll read this topic later, it's too much to cope with. I got to print this out and read in the train.)

Re: The true reason(s) to change the CL format
Author: ignjat63 Date: 17-04-2007, 15:38 Edited by: ignjat63 at: 17-04-2007, 15:42	"Well, I don't really see why it would be unfair that some countries have more teams than others. " It is unfair as long as the competition is called "Champions''". If it is the best teams of Europe that you want then no team from the country ranked lower than 20th place belongs there. This compromise stinks.

Re: The true reason(s) to change the CL format
Author: Kaiser Date: 17-04-2007, 16:06	Do not argue, guys. Debates won't decide all things. Just let's vote. I was, am and will always be for for quality. And what 'bout you? ikoon mayn't vote cause definitely know his decision.

Re: The true reason(s) to change the CL format
Author: ignjat63 Date: 17-04-2007, 16:20	OK, I too vote for quality. In that respect, CL should be abolished, and 32 best ranked teams should have their own League pretty much as it is now. No QRs.

Author: moro
Date: 17-04-2007, 17:45

Look, I have enough of this quality. And enough of seeing local semi-finals. Europe is large, we should see diversity. I'll be tired to watch 4 finals Chelsea-MU this spring.
2 teams (not even 3) from each country in CL, that's the good ideea. Let's make a strong UC, almost as strong as CL, with Liv'pool, Arsenal, Real, Valencia and Milan in it. I dont care if their ch-ship is tougher than the czech one. They must work harder to win it or finish second, than go in CL.

Re: The true reason(s) to change the CL format
Author: badgerboy Date: 17-04-2007, 18:43	Much as I enjoy the film Groundhog Day I think everyone knows my various views on pretty much all the quality/diversity questions & options. I see no need (nor benefit) in repeating them again.

Re: The true reason(s) to change the CL format
Author: panda Date: 17-04-2007, 19:07	This forum IS LIKE Groundhog Day. But maybe so is football... and so is life ???!!

Re: The true reason(s) to change the CL format
Author: badgerboy Date: 17-04-2007, 20:38	"This forum IS LIKE Groundhog Day." Except unfortunately there's no Andie MacDowell on here...

Re: The true reason(s) to change the CL format
Author: ignjat63 Date: 17-04-2007, 20:55	Would have been even greater movie with Greta Sccacchi instead. Or even Annabella Sciorra.

Re: The true reason(s) to change the CL format
Author: moro Date: 17-04-2007, 21:03	Dont like McDowell. She could go to Uefa Cup, no, better in Intertoto Cup.

Re: The true reason(s) to change the CL format
Author: badgerboy Date: 17-04-2007, 21:08	I thought Andie was perfect in the role. Though I've been a Greta fan in the past (Shattered, Presumed Innocent).

Re: The true reason(s) to change the CL format
Author: ignjat63 Date: 17-04-2007, 21:12	Yeah. Great movies, those two. But who is the main character here?

Author: badgerboy
Date: 17-04-2007, 21:26
Edited by: badgerboy
at: 17-04-2007, 21:28

If it was a Hollywood movie I'd obviously be the hero.

But I think it's an independent film - the sort that might get shown at the Sundance Film Festival.

If it was Hollywood I'd convince everyone of my wisdom - find out that ikoon was actually "Miss Gloria Bistrita" & ride off into the sunset with her.

But since it's an indie film I probably end up unable to cope with not being able to convince everyone that I'm right about everything nearly all of the time & slipping into a life of alcoholism & madness. As the strait jacket is applied it turns out that I'm actually the only person who uses the forum. Everyone else is part of Bert's schizophrenic personality & he's the real star of the show. In a film twist viewers are left wondering if in fact Bert & me are also one & the same person & the "anti-hero" has just been arguing with different aspects of his own personality for all these months".

Re: The true reason(s) to change the CL format
Author: moro Date: 17-04-2007, 22:21	Wow! Didnt get it. Too complicated. Too late.

Re: The true reason(s) to change the CL format
Author: Kaiser Date: 17-04-2007, 22:35	It's a football site, guys, isn't it?

Re: The true reason(s) to change the CL format
Author: ignjat63 Date: 17-04-2007, 22:45 Edited by: ignjat63 at: 17-04-2007, 22:47	badger, you are not really Neill Simon, are you?

Author: ikoon
Date: 18-04-2007, 07:25

In a film twist viewers are left wondering if in fact Bert & me are also one & the same person & the "anti-hero" has just been arguing with different aspects of his own personality for all these months.

As i suspectet, a fanatic that play different roles:

Badgerboy : the leading personality, the fanatic english gambler, interested more about the finacial fairness of the top clubs than football, esentialy materialist with a natural aversion against unpopular clubs, english patriot and with a hidding sympathy for Liverpool (?) (the last from the 4 english CL aces to gain aMastercard);

Bert: the site administrator, a men of few words but loyal to the UEFA rules and with no express opinion about the system and formats; a man of numers and coefficients, great database by the way;

Overgame, the non-top 6 user (very important dramatic effect) but with a high respect over a system that send Belgium to harvesting crops, a general obsession over one country, trolling tendancies and very focused and unimaginative comments;

The portugese apocaliptic personality, different users that came to post 1-2 coments from time to time, all very offensive toward some countries either in front of Portugal, but especialy behaind in the rankings;

I suspect that you also have a romanian personality, but i'm not sure which, i think that one of those who came and say "we rock" or "Romania is the best" and even make few stupid topics, when trolls like overgame are feeling without material.

Author: ikoon
Date: 18-04-2007, 07:57

I too vote for diversity, but as ignjat63 said the only way in which we can have diversity and competiton on long term is if top clubs decide to not parasitate the curent UEFA competitons and make their own, private close league. Amen.

Even, if Platini manage to avoid all Ferguson's boots directed to his head, and all the hitmans send by top clubs, i bet that these clubs are already training their new puppet for next UEFA elections (to finish the job started by Lenhart Johansson), so even a reduction of CL spots for top countries will be canceled by the next UEFA leadership.

Author: badgerboy
Date: 18-04-2007, 11:10

"badger, you are not really Neill Simon, are you?"

Is he as funny as me

I'm not really a theatregoer but I know two of Simon's films (surprised I don't know more). The Odd Couple (of course?) - quite famous & Biloxi Blues - not so well known but I remember seeing it at the cinema sometime in the late 1980s.

Kaiser - you're right. It is a football forum. These "tangents" happen occasionally though - it's usually the fault of either panda or ignjat (Bert's bickering congenital twins in the movie) - but threads are better for them probably 9/10 times...

Author: panda
Date: 18-04-2007, 11:22

@ikoon

"Are you STK in disguise?"

(In case anyone does not get this joke,
a) in the last re-run of the quality v diversity, money v romance, luck v corruption debate, the romance side was led by a Romanian called STK (on forum 2, retroactive) and, as now, ignjat63. If he is not here any more, many of us miss him a lot. He made posts I think of as being like the action of a traditional centre-forward (in english football, a shearer, drogba, that kind of thing), leading the line and so forth.

b) traditional football chant in england by fans of one team against fans of another 'are you team X in disguise?' e.g., when northern ireland was beating england 1-0, they could have chanted 'are you andorra in disguise?' But I am going at a tangent...

Author: cska
Date: 18-04-2007, 12:03

Hi again from me,
After I retold a fairy-tale describing well the CL issues, now I would like to "vote" for quality and diversity. And my "vote" is:
"Quality does not contradict with diversity."
So, I refuse to vote in a single direction.
If CL teams from top-3,5,7,X countries are reduced, then the teams from the lower ranked countries will have more chances to win money in CL and to retain their best players. On the other hand, CL sharks will not pour floods of money to buy the best players from non-top clubs. Thus, quality will not decrease dramatically - it will just be distributed in an unfocused way. You always percept "quality" as "Bayern - Manchester" versus "Lille - Rabotnicki". However, a game Manchester - Rabotnicki would be much more interesting if Man UTD hadn't so much CL money to buy stars and if Rabotnicki had more money to retain its skilled players. Probably, Man UTD would win again, but the overall quality of the game would be better.
Not only the top clubs contribute to quality. Diversity would also mean a better quality of non-top clubs. Believe me, a team like Levski, CSKA, Steaua, Dinamo would be a good match to Roma, Valencia, Liverpool or Bayern if they had better chances to play in CL and thus to earn money and strengthen their squads. On the other hand, less chances for top clubs to enter CL would mean less money invested in players and thus their power will decrease. This will give more chances not only for lower ranked countries, but will also give chances for the other teams in domestic leagues of top countries.
So, I vote for "quality by means of diversity".

Author: badgerboy
Date: 18-04-2007, 12:21

"@ikoon

"Are you STK in disguise?""

I've sort of assumed they had to be the same person for a long time now. Too much similarity in their "rants" to be otherwise. I didn't want to say anything in case I was wrong though but now someone else has

cska

Allowing teams like CSKA, Galatasaray, Rabotnicki to play CL more regularly isn't going to put them on more of a level playing field with Manchester United, Roma etc. If playing the CL year after year does this why do Anderlecht & Olympiakos keep losing. Why are Dinamo Kiev's results getting worse not better? There is so much money in the domestic leagues of the big five countries that a little bit of redistribution of CL revenue isn't going to help. Plus if you have say the Bulgarian Champions playing CL every year. This might be fine if the team changes. But if it's Levski again next year - & then the year after.... Doesn't that then mean the Bulgarian league (where the CL money really does make a huge difference) becomes less competitive because Levski has all that extra cash. All their best players still go to richer European leagues but now they can afford pretty much any player they want from the other Bulgarian teams (CSKA included). Of course Mr Mittal's money might change that - but outside investments are the exception rather than the rule. Look at Rosenborg's dominance in Norway (OK they had a one season blip in 2005 but won the league again last year).

Re: The true reason(s) to change the CL format
Author: Lyonnais Date: 18-04-2007, 14:23	yes. Furthermore assuming that "little" clubs will get more money means that it is assumed that TV rights will be pretty much the same in the future. This still needs to be validated.

Author: ikoon
Date: 20-04-2007, 20:12

My true reasons:

I have nightmares with top 6 countries and teams. Before i go to sleep, i remember how champions from top 6 falling like shouted ducks to other champions non-top 6. Then i dreamed that UEFA leaded by a senile sweedish (or scandinavian) old man (with a "neverending" mandate of 17 years) allow to top 6 to build an entire army of bodyguards around their champions teams and then kick out any new recruts that came from non-top 6 countries. Then i woke up and see that the bad dream is actually true. Enyone else with nightmares that became reality?

What upset me more, is another nightmare i have for some while now. I dream that in another next 10-20 years, the non top 6-7 countries will pay all a average of 10-20 mil euros/year (each country*46 FAs) like TV rights for a close Euro League, with teams exclusively from those first countries, because that will be the only european football competition sanctionated by UEFA, meanwhile the football phenomenum from the other countries, dead, uninteresting, unprofitable, low priority.

For those who understand more hardly, top clubs won't make a close league NOW, because there are not enough corpses in european football. There is the most real risk now, that once this league created to be a total failier, a new european competition created by the rest could be more atractive and attract more money, even from top countries. They need more corpses to make that step, more countries that will pay only their league for football prestation, more dissapointed fans and investors in their league, more domestic championship closed for lack of interest and quality.

Author: Overgame
Date: 20-04-2007, 20:26

Sometimes, i'm wondering if we've seen the same games.

If you're talking of Ajax like a "non-top 6 champion", yes. But i can't. Ajax is still a giant, and they'll be back soon.

That's funny, but Madrid won most of their title in the 60's, Milan almost everywhere, Liverpool mostly between 1977 and 1984, Munchen in the 70's.

That's funny, but with the current system, there is no team who won the cup 2 times in 10 years ! If you like to see a team wining the CL 2 times in a row, i don't.

Re: The true reason(s) to change the CL format
Author: dinamo_fan_4_ever Date: 20-04-2007, 20:43	why anderlecht isnt better after so many matches in UCL. maybe because they have bad managers and sold many players.(wilhemsson coming in mind) i would like to see if UCL impact can strengthen teams from romania, turkey, denmark, israel and cyprus, serbia, slovenia and ireland.

Author: Dragonite
Date: 20-04-2007, 21:12

Ikoon,

There isn’t a “top 6”, you are the only person who uses that expression. There isn’t a “top 5” either… and I see a lot of people using that expression.

There is a “top 7”- Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, England, Holland and Germany.

These are the “big 7”- these are the nations who had CL winners (since 1992/1993). These are the nations who have regularly teams in the last stages of the CL and UEFA Cup. These are the nations who, alongside Brazil and Argentina, have the best national teams (top 9 in the FIFA rankings).

In terms of club football, Portugal and Holland aren’t below France. It isn’t fair to include France as one of the “big 5” and Portugal and Holland below France. Portugal has won 4 Champions Cups/Leagues, Holland has won 6!! France has won… 1! Portugal (2004) and Holland (1995) both won a CL more recently than France (1993. Portugal (2003) and Holland (2002) both won a UEFA Cup more recently than France… France has never won a UEFA Cup, just the Cup Winners Cup (1996).

France is only better than Portugal and Holland when it comes to national teams’ football.

When you talk about the “top 6” I suppose you mean the “top 6” in the UEFA rankings… that “top 6” isn’t constant, you know it very well!! Portugal has been 6th since 2004 but before Greece was 6th (2002 and 2003), Holland (2001 and 2000)… in even earlier seasons Russia and Belgium were also top 6 in the UEFA rankings… in the future is likely YOUR Romania will also be a top 6 country.

So, tell me something… when YOUR Romania becomes a top 6 country (if they will ever do it), will they also become the “bandits” you consider the top 6 nations in the UEFA rankings are?

TO BERT, the creator of this forum:

Freedom of speech has limits!! This forum member, Ikoon, he treats everybody from 6 nations he dislikes as if they were “bandits”.

I see other people expressing theirs opinions about possible changes in the CL format, and they treat everybody else with RESPECT. I am also receptive to possible CL changes, I write my suggestions, and I do it without disrespecting everybody else.

Ikoon, if the CL is today the attractive competition that every team wants to participate, it’s because of Johansson. Johansson, with the changes he introduced in the competition- introducing group stages, expanding it to 32 teams, having more than 1 team per country- really created a very interesting competition that rivals in popularity with the World Cup… FIFA is already jealous of the Champions League success and are trying to have theirs’ own Club World Cup as a “World Champions League”.

I agree more countries should have better chances to play the Champions League, but you can’t FORCE diversity!! If you force the Cyprus champion to play the CL every year, and Cyprus hasn’t good players, they won’t BECOME good players for playing 6 CL games every season!! If you want to kick out of the CL 80% of the good teams, perhaps the Cyprus team will play 8 or even 10 games instead of 6, but they won’t become good either!! You have just removed most of the strong opponents they could face, and if they face equally weak opponents they may reach the CL quarters… but they will still be weak!

You seem to think teams from countries like Cyprus, Albania, Moldova, Andorra… are bad because they don’t have CL money every season!! Even if they had 5 million euros per season each, Andorra players would suddenly become good?? Most likely the Andorra team would sign 20 Brazilians! Is that what you consider “develop” football in Andorra? To sign 20 Brazilians in the Brazil lower leagues?

The Champions League is a competition of MERIT! 16 teams who came through qualifiers reach it… and other 16 teams are directly qualified.

Slight modifications could be introduced, such as 24 teams coming from the qualifiers instead of just 16 (no more runners-up qualifying directly)… each nation could have less 1 team than they have now (except nations who already have just 1), to give other teams from other countries better chances to reach the CL.

However, they MUST still reach the CL by themselves, you can’t just force theirs participation every year no matter how bad they are.

Football isn’t all about MONEY!! If there are 200 or 300 wonderful players in Bulgaria, Bulgarian teams will start to achieve great results in UEFA competitions. If there isn’t a single good player in Switzerland, no matter how rich Switzerland may be, they won’t achieve good results!

If football was all about money, Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay would have never won the World Cup!! The USA would have won it many times, England too (instead of just once), Canada would be a super power!

Re: The true reason(s) to change the CL format
Author: Kaiser Date: 20-04-2007, 21:27 Edited by: Kaiser at: 20-04-2007, 21:27	ikoon, where did you fall to? Yes i agree with Dragonite. We should freely speak.. but in limits. Humble 'en, ikoon. You are in minority. P.S. Although I'm not a non-top6 user.

Author: badgerboy
Date: 20-04-2007, 21:38

Dragonite

I just have to dispute with you slightly when you say there is no "top 5".

In my view there is a "top 3". Italy, Spain & England all have at least three teams a season who are potential CL winners & a lot of other teams that are potential UEFA Cup contenders.

Then there is a top 5. Add France & Germany because any French or German top league club expects to reach the UEFA Cup group stages & it's no great surprise for any of these teams to be in the knockout rounds & to be a force there. The best club (or clubs) from each country can also be a CL contender - & a little bit more consistently than the Dutch & Portuguese teams.

Then of course you are right. Top 7. But there is no way that the teams outside Portugal's big three or the Dutch big four (and AZ's presence at the "top table" is intermittent) have the same strength as their equivalents in France & Germany. That's the main reason I would make the exta distinction.

You're right that - coefficients aside - there is no "top six".

Author: dinamo_fan_4_ever
Date: 20-04-2007, 22:23
Edited by: dinamo_fan_4_ever
at: 20-04-2007, 22:30

agree with dragonite 75%, the top5-6 can be desputed but what i dont agree on:

"Football isn’t all about MONEY!! If there are 200 or 300 wonderful players in Bulgaria, Bulgarian teams will start to achieve great results in UEFA competitions. If there isn’t a single good player in Switzerland, no matter how rich Switzerland may be, they won’t achieve good results!"

the good players from a country can also play abroad, not to mention that "good player" is holy subjective. i believe in GOOD TEAMS not in good players, good teams can play without good players, but good players cant play without good teams.

you can have 8-10 locals and 8-10 foreigners none in national teams but forming a great team.

there can be locals that can change the mentality of the foreigners and 2-3 foreigners that can change the mentality of locals.

about the money.. 2007 football is mostly about money, lots of kinds of money. if there are 1000 good players in romania but the best budget is 5 mil euro, where will the great results come from ? if there are 50 good players in romania and the best budget is 100 mil euro there will be results.

p.s.

watch irish football in 10 years.

Author: ikoon
Date: 20-04-2007, 23:13
Edited by: ikoon
at: 20-04-2007, 23:43

I reffer to top 6, as the 6th is the last place with 3 CL spots, and statisticaly, usualy the teams that are now on the first 6 places, have the most "achivements" and presence in higher stages of CL.

Of course the top 3 are pretty stable, the next 2 stable enough, the 6th could be lost by Portugal, even for few seasons, but you always say that you would come back. The first 6 and maby the last 6 spots from ranking are usualy identified with the countries that are currently occuping them.

Of course Netherlands can be included, but they are far from 3 CL teams like value. But i can see that the "top 5" are the main profitors by the curent situation, as Portugal (and any other country that could occupy 6th) is the better profitor from the rest.

Freedom of speech has limits!! This forum member, Ikoon, he treats everybody from 6 nations he dislikes as if they were “bandits”.

Sorry but i don't have any respect for "cheaters". And this do not include any person or club from top 6 how you suggest being in error. But top 6 clubs that currenty dictates the CL terms and the FAs behind them who sustain transforming CL in "TV football service pay/and delivery".

I respect top 6 football, but not their interference in the competition formats, as this is the main subject in discussion.

Meanwhile, the lack of respect and good manners toward the small countries football and opinions, is the one worth looking.

You seem to think teams from countries like Cyprus, Albania, Moldova, Andorra… are bad because they don’t have CL money every season!! Even if they had 5 million euros per season each, Andorra players would suddenly become good?? Most likely the Andorra team would sign 20 Brazilians! Is that what you consider “develop” football in Andorra? To sign 20 Brazilians in the Brazil lower leagues?

Not reffering to that specific countries (as you choosed practicaly the last in rankings, with no particular interest in football), i belive that most of the other especially mid-ranking countries, until let's say 36th in rankings, could benefit from a open competition, first by experinece, continuity and international games then from the finacial income, both CL prizes and domestic income from fans, advertising and media groups, as also atracting more investments in players, young talents and facilitie, as oviously we gave them something more to fight for.

The Champions League is a competition of MERIT! 16 teams who came through qualifiers reach it… and other 16 teams are directly qualified.

Non-sense. Even the fact that 50% spots are ocuping with direct aceess by champions and runner-up from top 6 suggest somethingelse; meanwhile from the other that came from CLQR3 there are many other more from top 6 and just few outsiders, who manage to avoid both a top 6 draw or the bad luck with another outsider teams; too few diversity, too few outsiders, the result is that top 6 go in block after the groups with no real chalange; until let's say the 1/4s we can't realy can speak about merit, which is more the half of competition, and against the wrong opponents.

Slight modifications could be introduced, such as 24 teams coming from the qualifiers instead of just 16 (no more runners-up qualifying directly)… each nation could have less 1 team than they have now (except nations who already have just 1), to give other teams from other countries better chances to reach the CL."

The first slight modification is to take 6 spots from top 6 countries; only after that we speak about direct access and other staff.

However, they MUST still reach the CL by themselves, you can’t just force theirs participation every year no matter how bad they are.

There are 16 teams, champions and runner-up who coul contradict very easily this statement.

Football isn’t all about MONEY!! If there are 200 or 300 wonderful players in Bulgaria, Bulgarian teams will start to achieve great results in UEFA competitions. If there isn’t a single good player in Switzerland, no matter how rich Switzerland may be, they won’t achieve good results!

If football was all about money, Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay would have never won the World Cup!! The USA would have won it many times, England too (instead of just once), Canada would be a super power!

Don't tell me that. Tell to those who came with the idea to give some countries 4 CL spots from wich 2 with direct access and to a lot other to keep them at 1 CL spot, starting from CLQR1 and CLQR2.

Author: Dragonite
Date: 20-04-2007, 23:42

Badgerboy,

Allow me to disagree.

You say England, Italy and Spain all have 3 potential CL winners (at least).

England: Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester United… and Arsenal (?)
Italy: AC Milan, Juventus… Inter (?)…Roma (?)
Spain: Real Madrid, Barcelona… Valencia (?)… Sevilla (?)

What is a “potential CL winner”?? Is Inter is a potential CL winner?

Why is Inter a “potential CL winner”? Is it because they have millions to spend on players and they pay huge wages? Just because theirs players earn bigger wages, that makes them better?

As far as I know, Inter has always had millions to spend… and they can’t win the Champions Cup/League for more than 40 years. So, having those millions, by itself, doesn’t make them “potential CL winners”… in my opinion, at least.

Is Sevilla a “potential CL winner”? Should we consider a team a “potential CL winner” when they have never participated in the CL and the “strength demonstrations” just happened in minor tournaments?

Of course, this all depends of the meaning of “potential”… each of the 32 CL participants has chances to win it, even if they are 1 in a million. So, that makes each of them “potential” winners.

As for the UEFA Cup… some teams from England, Spain and Italy have good chances to win it (Tottenham, Sevilla, or Fiorentina) but others I’m not so sure about that. They may even reach the last stages, but when things get serious they don’t have what it takes.
For instance, Osasuna… they are used to play regularly against Barcelona, Real Madrid, Sevilla, Valencia, Zaragoza, Atletico Madrid, Villarreal, Deportivo… so, playing against a Leverkusen in the UEFA Cup quarters is nothing “impossible” for them… However, I doubt they will go all the way to win the UEFA Cup… Perhaps they prove me wrong, but that’s what I think. 3 Spanish teams in the UEFA Cup semis are also because of the draws… Ajax could have been a semi finalist if they hadn’t faced Werder Bremen earlier. Tottenham could have been a semi finalist if they hadn’t faced Sevilla earlier… I think Tottenham would have eliminated Espanyol, and Ajax would have eliminated Osasuna.

After England, Italy and Spain, according to you, are France and Germany.

In my opinion, Germany is way nearer those 3 than they are near France… Perhaps they are even better than one of those 3; I won’t even bother to check… I have the idea that Germany has won many trophies through the years; have/had very competitive teams, such as Bayern, Dortmund, Leverkusen, Werder Bremen, Schalke 04, Stuttgart, Hamburg…

The UEFA ranking may even place France above Germany right now, but I think Germany is (way) better than France.

By the way, in my opinion, teams like Lyon, Marseille, Monaco, Bayern, Dortmund, Werder Bremen… are at least as much “potential CL winners” as Inter or Sevilla or Arsenal.

Now the Lyon case… France never had a “super team” until now. Lyon is a “super team” for the French League level because each year they win and they sign the best 3 or 4 players from the other French teams (Squillaci from Monaco, Kallstrom from Rennes, Toulalan from Nantes, and Diarra from Lens). This is a vicious circle.

I’m sure that if in Holland and/or Portugal, if instead of having many good teams, all the best teams made a “fusion”- join all the best players of Ajax and PSV in one team, or join all the best players from FC Porto and Benfica in one team- which, “someway”, is what is happening in France, those Holland and Portugal “super teams” would be way better than Lyon.

Even FC Porto by itself, or Benfica, or PSV, or Ajax… I don’t consider Lyon better than any of these.

From the “big 3/5/6/7” in nations to the “big 3/4/5/6/7” in each country… This thing of “grouping” teams/countries is a big mistake when there are big differences.

By putting Sporting in the same group you put FC Porto you are both making a huge compliment to Sporting and making a big insult to FC Porto.

No way Sporting and FC Porto can be in the same group; FC Porto has participated in 12 of the CL 15 editions, in 7 of them qualified from the group stages… they have won 2 Champions Leagues/Cups, 2 Intercontinental Cups, 1 UEFA Cup, 1 Super Cup… while Sporting has just participated in 3 CL editions, never qualified from the group stages, and have just won one Cup Winners Cup in the 60’s.

If there are some groups in Portugal, the groups are: there is 1 huge team (FC Porto), 1 great team (Benfica) who was a giant and is trying to recover its former greatness, and 3 good teams (Sporting, Boavista and Braga).

I’m sure in Holland, PSV, Ajax, Feyenoord and AZ Alkmaar, aren’t all at the same level.

One more thing, about Boavista: Boavista has won the Portuguese League in 2000/2001, reached the CL last 16 in 2001/2002, reached the UEFA Cup semi finals in 2002/2003… not so bad!

How many teams from France and Germany have won 1 domestic League, and reached the CL last 16 and the UEFA Cup semis the last time they played both competitions?

How many teams from France and Germany have won 1 domestic league and reached the CL last 16 and the UEFA cup semis (no matter when) this decade?

How many teams from any European country have won 1 domestic league and reached the CL last 16 and the UEFA cup semis (no matter when) this decade?

This thing about Boavista is strange… After those good seasons, they couldn’t qualify to Europe since 2003/2004… and they won’t qualify to Europe too this season. That’s strange, because when you look at theirs team, they have many good players, and before the season started many would say they would finish top 5… but now they have many teams in front of them, most of them composed by “nobodies”.

Well, other evidence that money isn’t all that matters. A team like Paços de Ferreira, who has 10% of Boavista budget, is way ahead of them in the League… and even if Boavista next season signs all theirs players, that isn’t sure that next season Paços de Ferreira won’t finish again ahead of them.

One more thing, these are the “big 7” because they are the only countries with more than one great team. However, other countries may not have many great teams, but the few they have should still be considered- such as CSKA Moscow.

Author: Dragonite
Date: 21-04-2007, 00:12

Dinamo_Fan_4_Ever,

I am aware that the good players from Bulgaria can also play abroad; But all of them?

My idea was that if Bulgaria had 200 good players (20 for each of Bulgaria top 10 teams), if the 1st and 2nd teams performed really well and all theirs players (40) were transferred to foreign clubs, these 2 Bulgarian teams could sign more 20 good players from the 3rd-10th Bulgarian teams. They could also use some of that money to build football pitches, football academies… so that many Bulgarian kids could play football and they could keep finding new talents… In a few years, if they worked well, they would get richer and richer with the transfers, and instead of having to sell the entire team every year they would just need to sell perhaps 2 or 3 players per year and keep the others.

On the other hand, countries who just buy players… players from different countries, with different cultures… they will become “Babel Towers”, I doubt most of them would be successful… it would be a waste of money.

I don’t agree with you when you say a good team may not have good players?? How not?? If a team is composed by players, if the team is good then its players are good… if a team isn’t good, most of its players aren’t good.

Other thing, a player doesn’t have to play for his national team to be good. The players from Bolivia national team aren’t good (enough). Many Argentineans who don’t play for theirs national team are way better.

If there are 1000 good players in Romania but the budget is 5 million euros per team, supposing each team has 25 good players, they should sell 10 good players for 2 millions each, the budget would become 25 million euros, and with 25 million euros sign 5 great players to have 20 men teams, and some players with “extra quality”.

On the other hand, if there are just 50 good players in Romania and a budget of 100 million euros per team, if there are just 5 good players per team (the Romanian teams would be in the conditions of some English teams, like Bolton, West Ham, Fulham…) the other teams, knowing they had much money to spend, would ask for huge amounts of money for average players… if the signings weren’t intelligent, the team would crash.

When there are plenty of resources, people use to do stupid things. I know what I’m talking about; it happened to my team FC Porto after 2004.

Believe me, it’s better to have less resources and a great leader than plenty of resources and an idiot wasting them.

Author: Dragonite
Date: 21-04-2007, 00:49
Edited by: Dragonite
at: 21-04-2007, 00:58

Ikoon,

These CL changes that you hate so much- expansion to 32 teams, 4 teams per country…- weren’t made to BENEFIT Portugal!!

When they were made, Portugal was 10th or 11th in the rankings. There was the general feeling that after the Bosman rule, never again the Portuguese teams would recover the greatness of the 60’s and 80’s.

In 2002/2003, for the first time, Portugal had no team in the Champions League. And what have they done?? Instead of crying it was too difficult and UEFA should change the format and UEFA should kick out of the CL some teams and UEFA should make sure at least one Portuguese team would qualify to the CL every year … and UEFA should… and UEFA should… they fought, won 2 European Cups, reached finals, semi finals, quarter finals… and now are enjoying the privileges they earned with theirs results.

I don’t expect every nation to do the same… in fact, there is just room on top for a few… but they should at least try… instead of crying it is too difficult.

About the countries I mentioned, I wasn’t looking to rankings and writing the last nations… I was just writing some names from my mind.

I’m looking to the tables now: yes, it will be interesting to watch teams from Hungary, Slovakia, Croatia, Cyprus, Sweden, Slovenia, Bosnia, Latvia, Lithuania, Finland, Moldova, Ireland, Georgia… playing the CL… as long as they are GOOD ENOUGH to qualify. I don’t want to see Skonto Riga or Kaunas in the CL every year no matter how bad they are just because there must be a team from Latvia and a team from Lithuania.

If, by cutting 1 team from each of the nations with more than 1 team, and having 24 spots to fight for instead of just 16, these teams will have better chances, then let’s change the CL!

CL changes are inevitable! Its format has changed through the years… the last time was in 2003/2004… and it is likely that by 2009/2010 it will change again… and this is already the largest period without changes in the CL format ever (from 2003/2004 to 2008/2009).

By the way, unless the CL is expanded again, how will you fit 36 nations in a 32 teams competition?? Most likely the teams from 23rd-36th will still be out of the CL, and just the teams from countries from 12th-22nd will win with this.

Ikoon, winning the CL, or winning one of the top 7 leagues (in UEFA rankings, not the top 7 I mentioned before), isn’t that MERIT enough??

If these 8 teams qualify directly, there is no big deal… What is wrong is having non-champions qualifying directly. What’s so special about being 2nd? If teams like Sporting or Bordeaux hadn’t qualified directly, perhaps they wouldn’t even get through the qualifiers… and “lucky” would be the teams who happened to be theirs opponents!

Re: The true reason(s) to change the CL format
Author: Dragonite Date: 21-04-2007, 00:51	Badgerboy, I’ve noticed you are discussing football subjects in the World Soccer forum. Right now I’m too busy, I can’t waste my time in many football forums, but I promise in a few months I will join you there and we’ll discuss about a lot of subjects.

Re: The true reason(s) to change the CL format
Author: ikoon Date: 21-04-2007, 01:13	Dragonite, It is that forum where all Spain, England, Italy, France, Germany and The Rest of the World have a sticky?

Author: badgerboy
Date: 21-04-2007, 12:38

Dragonite

I guess we all have slightly different criteria & definitions for different things.

If you look at historic results & trophies as a major criteria you make many good points. I suppose the phrase "potential winner" isn't a very good one.

But - although Inter haven't won many trophies - they are still a team for whom failure to reach the knockout stages is a major surprise. If they lose to a team outside the top three countries plus perhaps Bayern Munich & Lyon it's generally seen as a "shock result". England has 4 teams for whom failure to reach the last 16 is seen as a major failure - whoever they draw. Italy has at least 3 (with Roma & Lazio occasionally making this four. Spain also has at least 3 but also a lot of other teams that are capable of making the last 16 - obviously with Sevilla (& Atletico Madrid) I can only talk of "potential" but Villarreal last year & even Celta Vigo & Real Sociedad - who definitely weren't "potential winners" & weren't great by Spanish standards - still made the last 16.

Some people are saying because England has three Champions League semi-finalists the Premier League is now the best. And the Spanish league is weaker this year because none of their top clubs are consistent. But if I was making an additional distinction based on "strength in depth" (1/3/5/7) I'd still put Spain at No. 1.

You're also right about the teams. I wrote somewhere on here that for Portuguese teams through the history of the European Cups there is a big gap: 1 Benfica, 2 Porto, 3 Sporting. Obviously if you look only at more recent times it becomes 1 Porto, 2 Benfica, 3 Sporting. In both cases Sporting are a fairly distant 3rd (also in domestic achievements).

But I still hold that - whatever the differences between my artificial "big three" within the Portuguese league there's still a distinction between that league & the French or German league.

Yes - Boavista had great performances for a few years when they won the Portuguese League, played CL, reached UEFA Cup semi-finals. But that's a major, major event in Portuguese football not just recently but in history. It's huge because no team outside the "big three" had won a title since the 1940s (welcome back Belenenses) before Boavista did it. Braga - who appear to be the 4th biggest team in Portugal right now have never (or at least never since 1950 - I'm not sure before that) even finished in the first three domestically.
In 57 seasons (actually make that 58 as you can include this one) - only 10 clubs have appeared in the top three in the Portuguese league ("big three" plus 7). Three of the seven "interlopers" have only managed it once.

Compare this to France in the same period - where 13 different clubs have actually won the title - 9 of them more than once. Nice & Reims were the teams of the 50s (Reims also a force in Europe); Saint-Etienne brilliant in the 60s & 70s; Marseille in the 90s; Lyon today. Many other teams - Monaco, PSG, Bordeaux just as examples - have had their moments over the years - in Europe as well as at home.

I'd also agree with you that - in terms of European achievements over the years Germany are way ahead of France & would make up a "historic big four" with England, Italy & Spain. Indeed in the 70s UEFA obviously saw England, Germany & Italy as the big three - giving them four UEFA Cup teams every year to Spain's three.

Author: Dragonite
Date: 21-04-2007, 16:07

Badgerboy,

Perhaps I haven’t expressed my idea properly.

I’m not saying “Inter can’t win the CL because they haven’t won it for the past 40 years”. If that was true, Holland couldn’t have won the 1988 Euro Cup because they had never won it before, Denmark couldn’t have won the 1992 Euro Cup for the same reason, France couldn’t have won the 1984 Euro Cup or the 1998 WC for the same reason too, Greece couldn’t have won Euro 2004…

What happened in the past won’t help teams to win or lose games… What will happen in the future just depends of how well they work to reach theirs objectives.

What I was saying was that we shouldn’t consider Inter a “big thing” JUST because they have millions to spend and they sign famous players and they pay them huge wages… because it has always been like this for the past 40 years and they couldn’t win. So, these “conditions” aren’t enough to win, we can say it for previous experience.

It may be surprising if Inter can’t reach the knockout stages of the CL… no wonder!! With the easy groups they usually get- Sporting, Spartak and Bayern this season, FC Porto, Artmedia and Rangers the season before…- they are really expected to progress. Not because they are great, because others are even worse. Once they reach the knockout stages and they face a strong opponent, theirs party is over! They were even eliminated by Villarreal last season!! Villarreal isn’t properly a big team!

The same could be said about Arsenal, for instance. They are “supposed” to reach the knockout stages because they usually have easy groups- like Ajax, Thun and Sparta Prague in 2005/2006. Once they reach the knockouts and they face a big team, they are also “supposed” to be eliminated.

Roma and Lazio aren’t “supposed” to get through the group stages… Lazio, the last time they played, in 2003/2004, were eliminated in the group stages… and Roma, before this season, were usual underachievers. In 2004/2005, they finished bottom of the group with Real Madrid, Leverkusen and Dinamo Kiev, and they haven’t won a single game.

As for Spain…Villarreal last season was really strange.
The entire last season was strange, indeed. That’s why, when you we talked about a possible Club World Cup and you mentioned Barcelona, Arsenal, AC Milan and Villarreal as Europe representatives, I disliked the idea.
Last season was strange for many reasons- Celtic and Dinamo Kiev were eliminated in the CL qualifiers by Artmedia and Thun, FC Porto and Manchester United couldn’t get through the group stages, Villarreal reached the semis, Arsenal went further than the CL quarters, Barcelona went further than the CL last 16…

This season is “normal” again- 3 of the 4 semi finalists (Chelsea, Liverpool and AC Milan) are the same of 2004/2005 season, and this time, the 4th is Manchester United (instead of PSV). With a different draw, the 4th could be PSV again, or FC Porto, or Lyon, or Bayern, or Barcelona, or Valencia, or Real Madrid…

Celta de Vigo and Real Sociedad in the CL last 16 was uncommon… however, if they were good enough to be Spain’s top 4, they were also supposed to be potential CL top 16.
Celta de Vigo qualified 2nd after AC Milan, but they only qualified because they won the last game in Italy… and they won the last game in Italy because AC Milan was already qualified (similar to what happened to Lille this season).
Real Sociedad was “lucky” to be in Galatasaray and Olympiakos group, two CL regulars who rarely do something special.

I think England is better than Spain… Not only England’s top 4 are better than Spain’s top 4, teams like Tottenham, Newcastle, Blackburn, Middlesbrough, Portsmouth… are also better than its Spain equivalents. Don’t forget, Sevilla is a “top 4” Spanish team right now… if a “top 4” English team was in the UEFA Cup, for instance Arsenal, would Sevilla eliminate them??? Even Tottenham, I wasn’t totally convinced that Sevilla is better… they just benefited from 1 unfair penalty to equalize the first game in Spain (at least that’s what I heard… quite common in Spain, though, so, not hard to believe).

One more thing, FC Porto is way better than Benfica… not just this decade, they are already better overall. Benfica used to say they were the best because they had 2 Champions Cups and had been beaten finalists of the Champions Cup another 5 times, while FC Porto had just 1 Champions Cup… that was before 2004. Now FC Porto has 2 Champions Leagues/Cups, 1 UEFA Cup, 1 Super Cup and 2 Intercontinental Cups- that’s 6 International Cups vs. just 2 for Benfica.

You haven’t answered my questions… I expected you to do a little research and write a list of how many teams matched the points.

You say the “big 3” in Portugal are FC Porto, Benfica and Sporting. The “big 3” in France are Lyon, Monaco and Marseille. They may not be the top 3 at the moment in the French League, but Lyon is the 6 times champion, Marseille and Monaco are the French teams that reached European finals recently.

Is Lyon better than FC Porto? Is Monaco better than Benfica? Is Marseille better than Sporting?? I don’t think so.

About the “others”:

Auxerre couldn’t get through the CL group stages in 2002/2003 (they eliminated Boavista in the qualifying round, by the way). I don’t remember them reaching a UEFA Cup semi final recently (correct me if I’m wrong).

Bordeaux couldn’t get through the CL group stages this season. I can’t remember them recently reaching a UEFA Cup semi final too.

Lens couldn’t get through the CL group stages in 2002/2003. I can’t remember them reaching the UEFA Cup semi finals too (in fact, I just remember them losing 3-0 against FC Porto in that same 2002/2003 season too):

Lille reached the CL last 16. Great! Like Boavista in 2002/2003. I can’t remember Lille has ever reached a UEFA Cup semi final.

Nantes reached the CL last 16 in 2001/2002… just like Boavista. They were in the same CL 2nd round group. Boavista finished 3rd, Nantes finished 4th. I also can’t remember Nantes reaching a UEFA Cup semi final.

Paris Saint-Germain couldn’t get through the CL group stages in 2004/2005. I can’t remember them reaching a UEFA Cup semi final, too. I just remember them, in 2002/2003, being eliminated by Boavista in an early stage, and they had in theirs team the “supposed best player of the World” Ronaldinho.

The other French teams never reached the Champions League

The French League may have had more winners through the years, but just this decade, from 2000/2001, Portugal had already 4 different champions in 6 seasons, while in France Lyon is going for its 6th League in 7 years.

Other thing, Portugal has 10 million people. France has 50 or 60 million people. For each great team Portugal has, France was supposed to have 5 or 6. And this isn’t what’s happening, is it?

It’s natural that at some point… the 6th best French team is supposed to be better than its Portuguese equivalent, and after those, in all the other comparisons France should also win.

Portugal has no size to have a 16 teams League, like they have now. I think the Portuguese League should have just 10 teams and be played in 4 rounds. Only then it would be really competitive.

One more thing, I don’t think Portugal is better than France in every subject. Portugal has a lot to learn with France in some things. France has a great “talent source” in Africa; Portugal should also do the same. France gets many players from the French speaking countries- Cameroon, Senegal, Ivory Coast, Morocco…- and Portugal, unfortunately, isn’t doing the same with Angola, who is already starting to become an African super power. Portugal is too dependent of the Brazilian market. While the big Portuguese teams sign from the big Brazilian teams, smaller Portuguese teams sign Brazilians from the 2nd, 3rd divisions. That’s bad. Portugal should keep signing the best Brazilian players and also sign more players not only in Angola, but also in North Africa, like Morocco, taking advantage of geographic closeness.

Author: badgerboy
Date: 21-04-2007, 16:36

Dragonite

But a big difference I see is the "variety" of big teams.

You can debate reasonably that at any given time (a snapshot if you like) Portugal's "top three" is slightly better, on a par or slightly worse than the three best French teams of the time.

But it's important to me that France has at least a dozen clubs (more over a longer period) who could be their "best three" at any given time. It fluctuates - their league (the current Lyon dominance excepted) is very open. If Marseille or Monaco got into Europe (CL or UEFA Cup) they would always be a dangerous opponent - they might not win but even if they were 10th in the French League this would be true. Boavista's brief intrusion excepted it's almost a "given" that Porto, Benfica & Sporting will be top three in Portugal - in some order or another.

Of course the size & population of the respective countries is a factor. But then these are a factor for everyone. For me the achievements of teams like Porto & PSV given current "footballing realities" are pretty phenomenal & the examples that all of the Steaua's, CSKA's, Fenerbahce's etc. should look to. But the fact they achieve "against the odds" doesn't make me rank their overall leagues on a par with the French & German ones.

Author: Kaiser
Date: 21-04-2007, 18:05

Advantages and disavantages of reducing 'good' teams:

Advantages

1. More competition in top6 championships as the result of reducing their spots.
2. Different people from vary countries adhereing to TVs. Still and all football is a world game.
3. It is interesting to watch style of play of teams of different coutries.
4. More champions for Champions League

Disadvantages

1. Less money
2. Less competition and the result is 1 item
3. Trite positions: 1place - 18points, 2-12, 3-6, 4-0

Author: Lyonnais
Date: 21-04-2007, 18:05
Edited by: Lyonnais
at: 21-04-2007, 18:06

France has a great “talent source” in Africa

I am interested to know which players you are thinking about?

because currently, I have the feeling that this is exactly the opposite, i.e. African nations having great "talent source" in France.

Last month, Domenech selected 2 young players, L. Diarra and Diaby (by the way, both playing in England - finding some good talent source in France too). Officially, these players were capped because they are good and but clearly - unofficially - he wanted to prevent Mali to select these 2 French born players.
Same for Benzema and Nasri (2 French-born players too), who were selected in the French squad too and who both had already been called by Tunisia and Algeria. By chance they didn't go but we already lost quite a few good players such as Kanoute, Sissoko, etc.

Re: The true reason(s) to change the CL format
Author: Kaiser Date: 21-04-2007, 18:07 Edited by: Kaiser at: 21-04-2007, 18:12	Those black and not only. Zidane, Henry, Cisse, N'diaye, Chimbonda, Wiltord etc. But they're still and all good players. P.S. Their ancestors lived in Africa, we can all agree P.S some more. I'm not racist. They're French, play for France, have French passport, speak French, their parents aer French. But if asked then answer.

Re: The true reason(s) to change the CL format
Author: Lyonnais Date: 21-04-2007, 18:16	Their ancestors lived in Africa, we can all agree I definitely agree but that doesn't change anything. They're French, not Africans, as Platini and Kopa are French, not Italian nor Polish.

Re: The true reason(s) to change the CL format
Author: Kaiser Date: 21-04-2007, 18:19	Not only France. For example, Russia. No, not football but futsal. The Russian national teams half consists of Brazilians: Pele, Alexandre, Maradona (I dunno both playing now) etc.

Author: Dragonite
Date: 21-04-2007, 19:01

I’m talking about:

Akale (Auxerre/Ivory Coast), Yaya Touré (Monaco/Ivory Coast), Kallon (Monaco/Sierra Leone), Hadji (Nancy/Morocco), Diatta (Saint-Etienne/Senegal), Ilunga (Saint-Etienne/DR Congo), Feindouno (Saint-Etienne/Guinea), Aliou Cissé (Sedan/Senegal), Job (Sedan/Cameroon), Jaziri (Troyes/Tunisia), Namouchi (Lorient/Tunisia), Zairi (Nantes/Morocco), Daf (Sochaux/Senegal), Enakarhire (Bordeaux/Nigeria), Jemmali (Bordeaux/Tunisia), Chamakh (Bordeaux/Morocco), Romaric (Le Mans/Ivory Coast), Sylva (Lille/Senegal), Makoun (Lille/Cameroon), Keita (Lille/Ivory Coast), Odemwingie (Lille/Nigeria), Youla (Lille/Guinea), Bakari Koné (Nice/Ivory Coast), Beye (Marseille/Senegal), Taiwo (Marseille/Nigeria), Mbami (Marseille/Cameroon), Olembe (Marseille/Cameroon), Oruma (Marseille/Nigeria), Niang (Marseille/Senegal), Kalou (PSG/Ivory Coast), Seydou Keita (Lens/Mali), Dindane (Lens/Ivory Coast), Mensah (Rennes/Ghana), Utaka (Rennes/Nigeria), Santos (Toulouse/Tunisia), Mansare (Toulouse/Guinea), Ouaddou (Valenciennes/Morocco), Dossevi (Valenciennes/Togo)…

It seems each French team has at least one African super star.

And the players come not only from French speaking countries; they also have players from Ghana and Nigeria, for instance.

Many other great African players have already played for French teams before joining other European teams- Song, Boka, Zokora, Drogba, Essien, Mahamadou Diarra, Sissoko, Kanoute, El Karkouri, Yobo, Okocha, Bouba Diop, Amdy Faye, Henri Camara, Diouf, Adebayor, Benachour…

If Portuguese teams started to sign players in other markets, such as the African, I would really like it! If Portugal had 20% of the results France has with this bet, I would be delighted.

It’s interesting… when France faced Senegal in the 2002 WC, the entire French team played abroad, and the entire Senegal team played in France.

France gets most of the best African players;
Holland gets most of the best Scandinavian players;
Spain gets most of the best South American Spanish speaking players;
England gets most of the best players from the French and Dutch leagues;
Germany gets most of the best players from Eastern Europe;
Italy gets most of the best players from Eastern/Southern Europe;

Each of them, apart from signing in theirs “favourite markets”, also signs some times in other markets.

I think Portugal should do the same! Instead of 80/90% Brazil (like now) it could be just 40/50% Brazil and also try to search for good players in Africa (Angola and North Africa countries mostly), North and Eastern Europe, Asia (why not?)…

Author: Kaiser
Date: 21-04-2007, 19:09

Russia aside??? No! We plan to sign Australians which have Russian forefather, Brazilians, Kenyan, Ukrainian (don't laugh

), Japanese, Korean, Chinese, Uzbeks, Kazakh and so on. For example, Gackan got Russian passport cause of Rubin-Zenit scandal. If you please we have foreigners limit (7max per match), and Rubin broke the restriction. As the result, Gazkan which played for Moldova is a Russian player.

Re: The true reason(s) to change the CL format
Author: Lyonnais Date: 21-04-2007, 19:53	Dragonite, ok i misunderstood your point. This said, France just get 2nd choice now. The 3 players that have selected for the African player of the year were Drogba, Essien and Eto'o. None of them play in France.

Author: porto-1978
Date: 22-04-2007, 01:28
Edited by: porto-1978
at: 22-04-2007, 01:53

I only agree with reducing the direct places (2nd placed of countries 1-6) or reducing top3 countries number of clubs to 3, maintain their 2nd placed with direct access and deny direct access to runner up of countries 4-6. And i defend that those changes should not give more direct accesses to champions 9-... but instead to have more clubs coming from QR. That increases the chances of more champions and more diversity but not impose it. This said, to answer to the question of the topic is, if CL is going to change the real aim should be always to achieve a competition model in which the GS are the more guarented as possible closer to the real 32 best of the continent and that the winner is recognized as much as possible as the best club in the moment.

Agree with Dragonite about the need of portuguese clubs to look for other markets rather than the brasilian. Specially african market can be very interesting and i really don?t understand why there?s not more/best african players in Portugal. By memory, there was in the past Madjer (Algeria/FCPorto), Vata (Angola, Benfica), Hassan (Marrocos, Farense), Amuneke (Nigeria, Setubal, Naybet (Marroco, Sporting), Chippo (Marrocos, FCPorto), McCarthy (South Africa, FCPorto), Douala (Senegal, Sporting) and don?t remember much more except an excelent nigerian defender that played for Sporting in the year they reached the UC final and i have the impression of some Zaire player passing by the portuguese footbal in the 90?s... Surely there was more but i?m not remembering. Madjer and Amuneke were among the best of the african continent at their time.

At the present moment there are 30 african players in portuguese first league: Mantorras (Angola, Benfica), Edson (Angola, Paços de Ferreira), N?Gal (Senegal, Leiria), Sougou (Cameroon, Leiria), Osvaldo (Angola, Naval), Lito (Cape Verde, Naval), Mbesuma (Zambia, Maritimo), William & Essame (Cameroon, Boavista), Fary & Khadim (Senegal, Boavista), Dario (Mozambique, Estrela da Amadora), Moses (Gana, Estrela da Amadora), Ndaye (Senegal, Estrela da Amadora), N?Doye & Dame N?Doye (Senegal, Academica), Freddy (Angola, Aves), William (Cameroon, Aves), Diarra (Senegal, Beira-Mar), Buba (Cameroon, Beira-Mar), Diakite (Mali, Beira-Mar), Emerson (Cape Verde, Beira-Mar), Amuneke (Nigeria, Setubal as his father), Madior & Diaye (Senegal, Setubal), Sandro & Janicio (Cape Verde, Setubal), Ayew (Gana, Setubal), Mbamba (Cameroon, Setubal), Inzaghi (Guinea Bissau, Setubal)

By nation:
Senegal 9
Cameroon 6
Angola & Cape Verde 4
Gana 2
Nigeria, Mali, Zambia, Mozambique & Guinea Bissau 1

At present moment there?s almost 2 african players by club:
Setúbal have 8 african players;
Boavista & Beira-mar 4;
Estrela da Amadora 3;
Leiria, Académica, Naval & Aves 2;
Benfica, Paços de Ferreira & Marítimo 1;
(Porto, Sporting, Belenenses, Braga & Nacional none.)

It?s easy to conclude that clubs with more africans are at the bottom of the table. Indeed i agree that there?s to less african players in first portuguese league but at the same time i?m not sure if the problem is the quantity (only).
Or portuguese clubs are not able to work with african players and make them to grow up, or many of the african players in portuguese league are not that good. I think both things happen.
Many of the african players in first league reach that level starting on inferior levels and performing good there. But portuguese clubs hardly manage to make them develop even more when they get in the first league. Probably for most of those players being at portuguese first level is like the top for them. As inferior level clubs sign african players also for economical reasons and some starts earning not that much money, when they get a real contract they usually lose their mind... And have not real ambitions in other clubs/leagues or else have too much ambitions for their legs... Of course there?s exceptions but i see african players (specially those that came from lower levels) with more tendence to feel pressure by the size of the portuguese league while brazilians came from a potency in football and are more likely to relax. Some of brazilians (specially caming from lower portuguese and brazilian levels) also can?t deal with the pressure or get lazy until they get motivated, or not... But it?s much more usual that portuguese first league clubs go directly to the main or medium brazilian clubs, while very few times they go for african players directly to top african clubs or sign african players in other european leagues.
So i agree with more african players if those more are of higher quality than the avarage or else just a better selection of the players would be enough. Or else more capacity to develop fisical, mental and tactical capacities of the players, with more youth captation and formation.
About the african market portuguese sub-top clubs should look to examples in France, Belgium and other countries of good integration of african players.
Same thing should be done by Portugal for other markets such the rest of latin America and not so exclusivly Brazil, Europe, specially eastern countries for economic reasons and Asia (major risk at the moment but it?s possible to try, there?s good players almost everywhere).
All clubs should promote youth captation inside the country and abroad on as much countries as possible; sign coaches with vision of present and future and give stability to the team; integrate the new players wisely and benefict from selling the best; grow teams with a base of experienced players making most of the career on that club or coming from other clubs; give economic stability to the club so that can use all or most of the money of the sellings to buy new players, specially when the team needs experience and maturity (players unhappy with the lack of chances in another club home or abroad, for example) trying to catch as much international players as possible. And other good players not international but experienced, mixed with the young talents cathed or developed.

I know this is a bit off topic but a bit on topic too: see it as alternatives to try to win not thinking if the rules will be changed or not.

edited: from the 30 african players in portuguese league about 10 started in lower levels. The other were bought abroad, in many different countries including some cathed in their home countries. Still some of them were not always in first level, going down and up with the club. Some of the players signed by first division clubs were signed probably when those clubs were not in first level.

Author: Lupta_Steaua
Date: 02-05-2007, 23:06

Well, we know now the two CL finalists.

Both of them, did not win there local championships, and are not in contention this year as well (even without the point deduction).

So, a CL final is disputed by third placed teams from top countries. I clearly would see a need to change the current format due to this reason. Not that I am a fan of teams like MU and Chelsea, actually in England I like Liverpool the most. But still...

I would like to see badgerboy's opinion on this. However, it does look like the importance of winning the championship in England, or any other top 3 country for that matter, is significantly reduced.

You can fight to win the championship, and have reduced forces to fight for CL. And in the same time, you can always fight only for 4th (or 3rd for the matter) spot, and concentrate on the CL.

I am not sure whether this is subjective or not, but I do believe that the CL final has to be fought by champions.

Re: The true reason(s) to change the CL format
Author: Overgame Date: 02-05-2007, 23:35 Edited by: Overgame at: 02-05-2007, 23:36	And as i've said a thousand time, what do you want fot the CL ? 1) The best games possible in Europe. 2) Games between champions. I've taken the 2 extreme sides, but you got the idea. I want to see the best teams in europe at the current moment, and not some teams who had won their league one year ago.

Re: The true reason(s) to change the CL format
Author: mark87 Date: 02-05-2007, 23:45	I do not want the top three country's CL places reduced because it is better to have Valencia, Lazio and Arsenal than teams from other country's that are worse.

Re: The true reason(s) to change the CL format
Author: Lupta_Steaua Date: 03-05-2007, 00:18	Overgame, You don't deserve any attention, as it looks like you had not paid any attention to what I wrote. I watched the game. I know MU did not count during the whole game. My point was that the CL is won by 3rd placed teams. Not the previous year, but this year as well.

Author: Overgame
Date: 03-05-2007, 00:42

"So, a CL final is disputed by third placed teams from top countries. I clearly would see a need to change the current format due to this reason."

As far as i understand, you're qualified via your league position of the previous season (and i don't know how you could change that).

I don't want to lose many good teams for the sake of "champions vs champions is better", that's all. My post has nothing to do with the game Milan-MU.

Author: Lupta_Steaua
Date: 03-05-2007, 06:10

Overgame,

Maybe I should rephrase what I wanted to say. My idea was that it is not normal to have the CL disputed by teams that cannot challange the leadership in their own championships. This leads to the question whether 2nd, 3rd, 4th from any country should get a chance at winning the CL. It simply looks like ending 1st, or 4th is England is not that much different now, while it actually should be.

Also, analysing the CL knockout games, one could say that maybe we did not even have the best teams reaching the last rounds. I mean scores like 1:7, or 0:3 could probably be "achieved" by any of the last year's Q3 team.

Reason enough for changes? Probably not, money is way more important. But it surely is a reason for getting a sour taste towards the CL.

Author: Ricardo
Date: 03-05-2007, 08:17

I think I agree with Lupta, being 3rd in your own country, and with a clear distance of the title, I mean there wasn't even a remote chance for Milan and Liverpool to win thee title this year, shows that these teams are nto the best teams in their own country. How can they be the best of Europe?

And it seems, though you never know, that both Liverpool and Milan seemed to have concentrated on the CL, leaving the domestic title as it is. Just doing enough to qualify for next year.

I would prefer for teams to have to do more to qualify. Become a champion, maybe a few runners up, but more, no. Let them first prove that they are the best of their country, and then they can fight out who's the best of Europe....

Re: The true reason(s) to change the CL format
Author: moro Date: 03-05-2007, 08:19	Champions or not, I think the current format should be changed in order to put last 8 to play more games (2 groups of 4 for example) - it's a pitty to see a quality team out after two games.

Author: Overgame
Date: 03-05-2007, 08:27

"shows that these teams are nto the best teams in their own country. How can they be the best of Europe? "

A cup is different than a league. You could be out without any defeat or win it without a victory.

And for Milan, right now, they are robably one of the best team in europe. The start was difficult, but after the winter break, they took the same number of points than Inter (36/45) ! 9 more than Roma, 4 than Lazio, etc.

Author: badgerboy
Date: 03-05-2007, 10:29

LuptaSteaua wrote:

"So, a CL final is disputed by third placed teams from top countries. I clearly would see a need to change the current format due to this reason. Not that I am a fan of teams like MU and Chelsea, actually in England I like Liverpool the most. But still...

I would like to see badgerboy's opinion on this. However, it does look like the importance of winning the championship in England, or any other top 3 country for that matter, is significantly reduced".

Well if you want to take the argument to the extreme then the current CL format reduces the importance of being Champions in the top fifteen countries - not just the top three. If Steaua are second to Dinamo - beaten by 15 points or so then by QR3 they are still better-placed (seeding etc) to have a good competition than their domestic champions.

For me the fact that we have a Liverpool-Milan final this year is a shame - I wanted Chelsea - Man U because they are clearly the best teams in England at the moment. But if anything the final we have reminds us of the fact that the Champions League is still essentially a cup competition. Once you get to the last 16 there are probably about a dozen teams that can potentially win it.

Look also at the year Porto won it. I seem to remember at the quarter-final stage you had the prospect of the three best teams of the moment - Arsenal, Milan & Real Madrid (though Madrid collapsed domestically soon after too) - going on to the semi-finals along with Lyon or Porto. All three teams lost (to teams that weren't domestic champions) & I suspect the majority of forum users cheered fairly loudly. I know I did at least 2/3 times.

For me one of the big advantages of the current competition over the old format is that you greatly increase the chance of a great side in the current season also being in the latter stages of the continent's Premier club competition. Under the old format you might have say: Barcelona playing brilliantly football one year & winning the league but the next season they are a "pale shadow" & it's Real Madrid who are playing the best football but they are in the UEFA Cup.

Essentially who is in this year's final doesn't change my opinion. It would be better in a way if it was Man U v Barcelona or Lyon v Inter (as it might have been better in 2004 if Porto had had to contend with Arsenal, Milan & Real Madrid in the semi-finals) but the fact you also have to see off teams like Milan or Liverpool (as opposed to maybe Levski Sofia & Dinamo Zagreb) to win it just makes the achievements of a team - like Barcelona last year - who can be the best both domestically & in Europe - even more incredible & admirable.

Author: Kaiser
Date: 03-05-2007, 10:32

First of all format suggestion of Euro Cups
As we have Champions League and UEFA Cup, there are some offers to make it true:

CL - 8 groups of 4. 2 best teams are promoted to the next group stage. 2 best teams from each group of the 2nd group stage promote to the third group stage - 2 groups of 4. -> Final group - 4 teams. They compete for the prize.

UC - straight cup format

WHY NOT?

Less arguments, less rumours, more CL matches.

Secondly I analyzed the things which teams can play levelly and which cannot. It's just my opinion.

England: 1-6 - can, 7- can't
Spain: 1-4 - can, 5- can't
Italy: 1-4 - can, 5- can't
France: 1-3 - can, 4- can't
Germany: 1-4 - can, 5- can't
Portugal: 1-3 - can, 4- can't
Netherlands: 1-3 - can, 3- can't
Russia: 1-3 - can, 4- can't
Scotland: 1-2 - can, 3- can't
Belgium: 1 - can, 2- can't
Greece: 1 - can, 2- can't
Austria: neither can
Ukraine: 1 - can, 2- can't
Switzerland: neither can

and so on.

I show 'can't' which teams will definitely be flunked.

Author: badgerboy
Date: 03-05-2007, 10:48

Kaiser

Are you abolishing some domestic games or International matches to make room for an extra 11 Champions League fixtures?

As for your list of "who can & who can't". I assume you're talking about competing "at Champions League level" & since you include Olympiakos & Anderlecht as "cans" I assume winning isn't important?

I'd definitely be more confident about more La Liga teams "competing" than Premier League teams.

Author: panda
Date: 03-05-2007, 11:33

@luptasteaua etc

If the domestic league is very hard to win, as it is / was in England this year then obviously there is a psychological effort for other teams towards the other prizes - domestic cups (though these will go to Chelsea or Chelsea + Man U) and the CL.

I don't believe it's possible for it to make no difference sub-consciously to a player, to know the CL is the only one, OR, that the CL and the also prestigious domestic league is a target too.

I agree, you get some meaningless games near the end with the current system of CL qualification - it happens that Arsenal and Liverpool already qualified, so Liverpool did play many reserves last Saturday, knowing the result was pretty irrelevant.

and yes, the Milan situation is similar- the sense that they cannot win the Serie A title.

I don't think there is a particularly neat solution to this. But maybe it's good that it's really hard for one team to win everything.

I have to say I think it's the polarisation of talent towards the very big, very rich clubs that makes a true cup of only champions less feasible - I mean that the top 10 clubs in Europe are (except Lyon) ALL from the top 3 countries - the question is not a theoretical one, about whether you want to see just champions or not, the question is fundamentally about whether you want to see those 9-10 clubs (last yr no Chelsea in top 10 team ranking, this year, no Juve for obvious reasons) playing each other in later stages, or not.

Author: badgerboy
Date: 03-05-2007, 11:41

"Liverpool already qualified, so Liverpool did play many reserves last Saturday, knowing the result was pretty irrelevant".

I do hope Rafa is aware that both Fulham & Charlton are still involved in a very serious relegation dogfight though. I know Arsene Wenger's attitude: "showing respect for the integrity of the league & other clubs involved etc" might be slightly different if Arsenal were still in the Champions League - but still. Making it slightly easier for Portsmouth to progress towards the UEFA Cup is one thing -doing the same "favour" for relegation threatened teams is another thing all together.

Author: Kaiser
Date: 03-05-2007, 11:46

Unless Milan get the CL spot and if it triumphs over Liver, there are will be an interesting situation with reducing 4th Italian club (which undoubtedly take offence at it

) and adding Milan as a title-holder. But it would be fairer that 5 clubs enter instead of Milan+3. This siuation, however, happened to England (Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal and Everton) last season, do you remember, badgerboy? It's still your country.

Author: panda
Date: 03-05-2007, 11:47

Yes, I agree with you, badge, but the big problem here, for me, is in the hearts of the players. You can select who you like, but you can't make the team play 'as if it matters.' You can't take away what is in the back of the minds of the players.

Someone like Benitez, who rotates a lot (indeed, this may well have harmed Liverpool early in the season, or be benefiting them now, I dunno), could argue that he would be changing the team around anyway. There have already been some 'nothing to play for matches' like the one against Man City.

That is, I think, just the luck of the draw again - West Ham and Man U meet on the last day, isn't that right? By then Man U could be champions; WHU might well need points to stay up. It could be the best possible time to draw Man U. Wigan and Sheff U - same sort fo thing; it's possible only Wigan might need points from the fixture. You can play with integrity and of course you should, but you can't play in ignorance of the real-life situation affecting your team.

Re: The true reason(s) to change the CL format
Author: panda Date: 03-05-2007, 11:55	@kaiser Ha Ha! I never thought of that; but looking at the table I can't see Milan NOT qualifying for Cl next year anyway.

Re: The true reason(s) to change the CL format
Author: Kaiser Date: 03-05-2007, 11:58	Not excepted the case Milan won't reach the CL spot via Serie A.

Author: badgerboy
Date: 03-05-2007, 12:01

Kaiser - no way in a million years (at least this year :wink

Milan wont finish in Italy's top four. Though I totally agree that - if a CL winner finishes outside the top four then that country - even Italy! -should get an extra spot.

Panda - you're right of course about the attitude of the players. And it could be argued playing any "mid-table" side at this stage of the season is also a positive & "luck of the draw". I seem to remember Portsmouth's relegation escape last year being kick-started mightily by their facing a side still in the FA Cup (was it West Ham - I can't remember?) who fielded a weakened side & played like chumps. I want Fulham & Charlton to go down though - or more precisely West Ham & Wigan to stay up - so I'm worried....

Author: Kaiser
Date: 03-05-2007, 12:14

I think that rule isn't accepted cause 'country should know how many spots it disposes'. Totally ludicrous! It'll be very interesting to watch CL finals. For example, a country has 4 spots with 2 CL's ones. It's team won the CL. Then they have 1-2 + title-holder - CL. But they should also send 2 teams. Total:5 clubs in Eurocups. Do you see my point now? CL final will be too interesting for the current 5th team of those country.

Author: panda
Date: 03-05-2007, 12:14

Yeah, I can't see Milan losing a 7 point cushion and GD.

relegation- Wigan have it in their own hands and must try to win against Middlesboro (which is entirely possible, Boro have nothing to play for and are currently pretty poor, and the match is at home for Wigan)

You have to hope also, I guess, that Sheff U get a point at least against Villa, that Spurs' desire for European football means they beat Charlton, and that Man U beat Man C. If you want Fulham to go down (I tend to agree with you on Fulham and Charlton) you also have to hope Fulham continue to be dire and lose against nothing-to-play-for Liverpool at home. Meanwhile, West Ham have a tough match against Bolton; you have to hope they get at least a point.

Then you go into the last match of the season and you could have Fulham, Charlton, WHU and Wigan ALL winning and STILL Fulham and Charlton going down, Fulham on GD just - if Wigan beat Sheff U heavily, Sheff U could still go down with 39.

Sorry- bit of a forum 2 post, but it illustrates the general point - at the end of the season, we can't know in advance which team is playing for what.

Re: The true reason(s) to change the CL format
Author: executor Date: 03-05-2007, 12:17	No country can have more than 4 teams in CL. This rule was enforced right after the Liverpool incident. So, even if Milan wins CL and finish 5th, the 4th ranked team goes to UEFA Cup.

Re: The true reason(s) to change the CL format
Author: Kaiser Date: 03-05-2007, 12:20	executor I know it. My point is 'why not?'

Author: badgerboy
Date: 03-05-2007, 12:28
Edited by: badgerboy
at: 03-05-2007, 12:28

Kaiser. You're now saying - I think - that the country of the CL winner should get an extra spot even if that club is already qualified for the Champions League.

So this year either the 5th in England or Italy would also play CL?

I would just about support this - and for UEFA Cup winner too - as long as the two "extra" teams started in QR1. I'm happy with the status quo though (except if the actual CL winner is 5th - or 4th in Germany etc) then the 4th in the league - 3rd in Germany - should also play CL.

Author: executor
Date: 03-05-2007, 12:29

Perhaps it's because there would be too many teams from 1 country in CL. As many mentioned, it's enough there are too many 2nd, 3rd, 4th placed teams in "Champions" League. Why add a 5th place one?

But other fact I found completely unfair. A country with less than 4 teams in CL will NOT get an extra spot in that competition if one of its representatives wins it AND finishes on a CL place in domestic league. The same for UEFA Cup. THIS rule is without logic.

Author: Kaiser
Date: 03-05-2007, 12:38

No, I just imagine the loophole of the rule. 2+2 or 3+2 - good difference. Unless you gey my point, imagine:

England:

Chelsea
Man. United
Liverpool
Arsenal
Tottenham
Blackburn
Newcastle
West Ham

All of them are preparing for Eurocups and suddenly... Liverpool wins the CL. My rule does:

Chelsea - GS
Man. United - GS
Liverpool - GS as a title-holder
Arsenal - 3QR

Title-holder spot is used and CL has no England QR 2nd team. Which'll be?

Answer: Tottenham.

If Tottenham is in CL, UC hasn't got one spot. Which'll be?

Answer: Bolton. WHY? Because Liverpool won the CL.

Total. England, in spite of spot it disposes, gets the extra spot called 'title-holder'. Shift is going. CL steals Tottenham from UC, for UC's part it steals 'guiltless' Bolton which was 8th.

Do you see my point now?

Author: badgerboy
Date: 03-05-2007, 12:39

"But other fact I found completely unfair. A country with less than 4 teams in CL will NOT get an extra spot in that competition if one of its representatives wins it AND finishes on a CL place in domestic league. The same for UEFA Cup. THIS rule is without logic".

Executor - you don't need the AND. None of the top 15 (two places or more) gets an extra place if their team wins the CL - even if that club finishes outside the qualifying places.

So if - to give a wild example - Steaua were to win the CL next year (obviously after finishing 2nd domestically this year) but only finish 5th in the Romanian league then the second-placed team in Romania would only play UEFA Cup.

With the UEFA Cup you do get an extra place (Spain would if Espanyol or Osasuna won this year) & it's theoretically possible to get two - an extra UEFA Cup place is also awarded if a CL winner fails to qualify for Europe all together.

Re: The true reason(s) to change the CL format
Author: badgerboy Date: 03-05-2007, 12:45	"Do you see my point now?" Yes it's exactly as I understood you. But the "consequences" of letting Tottenham (in your example) start in QR3 is that other teams have to start earlier. Now Dinamo & Liverpool/Milan just swap places in the draw. But if Tottenham replaces Liverpool then Dinamo still has to go somewhere - presumably replaces Basle/Zurich - who have to play QR2 etc. etc.

Re: The true reason(s) to change the CL format
Author: executor Date: 03-05-2007, 13:30 Edited by: executor at: 03-05-2007, 13:31	Badgerboy You're right about the CL. But it's even worse this way

Author: ikoon
Date: 03-05-2007, 16:24
Edited by: ikoon
at: 03-05-2007, 16:34

Each team from the top 3 can win CL. The difference between champions and the rest is not made in the CL format, without the small exception of puting some teams to play a qualification round, like seeded of course, huge coeffs helps.

"We don't want champions one year old we want the best teams..." Really? And who says that the 3-4 teams allowed in CL from first 6 countries and 1-2 from the rest are the best team in ALL Europe, other than a one year old statistic ??? Or a 5 years old seeding coeff and country coefficients who make rankings ???

When was the last time when FC Barcelona and Real Madrid for example, being a "pale shadows" gone to UC? In small countries happens all the time, because the lack of spots. The CL is different though, "the pale shadows" from top countries have their guaranteed place in CL. Other teams must always be "a bright shadow" and win their domestic league non-stop, or bye bye. Welcome to CL and the shadows paradox!

And what the heck the spot distribution rewards anyway? The low competitive leagues, in which one teams win 6 titles in a row, have 3 or 4 spots, and other more competitive league where in yeach season is a fight to the death for first 2-3 places, never seen 2 CL spots! Give me a break with the CL the best team competition, it don't even meets the fundamental requirments of a "competition" not to mention that the spot distribution is totaly against in giving a chance to all best teams to compeate.

And, btw CL is not cup and is not league, it is a mixture: a little lotery cup for the outsiders (QRs), to fill 9 spots (from 46 FAs), one for each group which suppose to finish 4th and allow best 2 top 6 go further and the weakest top 6 (3rd) also go furher but on lesser money; then by a short league (in no way a lotery) as i've explained; then once outsiders out (each against 3 top 6 cold bussinismen, and cannot made any upsets) again a cup with eliminatory rounds untill the end, to not angry any of the top teams. Special note, no top 6 team in eliminatory round against a unpredictable/unknown/outsider team, that manage to pass the groups, because of the format they can't go through.

Author: Kaiser
Date: 03-05-2007, 16:31
Edited by: Kaiser
at: 03-05-2007, 16:46

I good idea occurs to me. What if I make a list of brands and list of competitive teams which are worthy for the CL playoffs

List of brands

Real Madrid
Barcelona
Chelsea
Arsenal
Liverpool
Bayern
Juventus
Milan
Internazionale
Man. United

Top16

Chelsea
Arsenal
Man. United
Liverpool
Barcelona
Real Madrid
Valencia
Sevilla
Milan
Juventus
Internazionale
Roma
Lyon
Bremen
PSV
Porto

I know it's offtopic but it's shown that past champions is only history... We shouldn't depend only on our knowledges but on rankings.

Author: ikoon
Date: 03-05-2007, 16:43
Edited by: ikoon
at: 03-05-2007, 16:55

When i propose to cut off the rankings from 5 to 3 years, the main arguments against were : "too short time", "too many quick changes", "WE don't like quick changes", "other may profit (damn weasels)", ...

Now you say that "a one year old champion" don't count for nothing and is no big deal and it is to be put in the same category with one year old 2nd, 3rd or 4th places, because the last ones may even be better right NOW. Then the whole, qualificaton from domestic leagues is pointless, or in the top 6 cases, the position.

Great point, by Lupta_Steaua, that for example in England, the only penality for finishing 3 or 4 instead of 1 or 2, is "the big punisment" to have to play an aditional round against Dinamo Zagreb or Maccabi Haifa (for Liverpool was indeed, but now is better, they have to play and loose the CL final).

Author: ikoon
Date: 03-05-2007, 17:17
Edited by: ikoon
at: 03-05-2007, 17:28

@Kaiser,

I know it's offtopic but it's shown that past champions is only history... We shouldn't depend only on our knowledges but on rankings.

Like i said, any top is influenced by how many spots a contry have. If England, Spain, Italy will have more spots how you propose, 5-8 / each competition instead of 4, then you could make a top 50 teams, top exclusively with top 6 teams.

Everything is disccused, it is comming back to this very important topic spots/country. Many says that is boring, but no matter, it is a reality. It is more boring a top or a statistics, that takes his results from this reality (different spots), but forget to mention.

So please top making tops with best 16-32-100 because there are boring, the same stuff, copy/paste from CL last 16. Even some teams like Valencia that are history, with many eliminations by outsiders, not even mentioned.

Yes, those teams with small exceptions are top 16 teams in Europe (more brands if you ask me), with no regard to anythingelse, so move along, we agree! Some of them have even 1 milion fans all over the wordls + the fans from Asia, who travel to see every game

PS: Isn't a Real player or was it the someone of the staff, who said that he likes better a friendly japaness cup (where Real was invited) than CL, forgeting to mention that "a friendly game" in that cup was worthing double than any CL match.

So what do you think that any of the top CL teams will choose, a "quality" CL with the current prizes, or a Champions World Cup (ex.), with champions from Mozambic, Japan, Canada, Malta, Armenia, Albania, ..., but the wins and draws paid doube ???

It is a hard choice isn't it?

Re: The true reason(s) to change the CL format
Author: Kaiser Date: 03-05-2007, 17:41	So please top making tops with best 16-32-100 because there are boring, the same stuff, copy/paste from CL last 16. ikoon, d'ye really think your rot isn't boring?

Author: Overgame
Date: 03-05-2007, 18:52

""We don't want champions one year old we want the best teams..." Really? And who says that the 3-4 teams allowed in CL from first 6 countries and 1-2 from the rest are the best team in ALL Europe, other than a one year old statistic ??? Or a 5 years old seeding coeff and country coefficients who make rankings ???"

You're simply saying "you're system is not perfect, let's drop it and use a worst one (from the same point of view)". Even within the same season, a team can change a lot (Lyon/Milan are the 2 best examples).

"The low competitive leagues, in which one teams win 6 titles in a row, have 3 or 4 spots, and other more competitive league where in yeach season is a fight to the death for first 2-3 places, never seen 2 CL spots!"

Please, only Lyon won the title 6 times in a row. You should perhaps stop to claim non-sense everywhere.

"a little lotery cup for the outsiders (QRs), to fill 9 spots (from 46 FAs)"

32-21=11, and they're playing against each other, and I don't see why a team like Dinamo Zagreb should take the place of Arsenal if they cannot beat them.
As i've said a thousand times, i don't see why a team should replace a stronger one for the sake of seeing more champions in the CL.

"no top 6 team in eliminatory round against a unpredictable/unknown/outsider team, that manage to pass the groups, because of the format they can't go through."

Again, i don't see why a weaker team should get a free pass for the sake of your eyes. If they cannot win against the others, why should they play the last16 ?

In fact, if we follow your line until the end, we could say that that's not normal for a team from the 3rd division in my country to not be able to win the title !

Re: The true reason(s) to change the CL format
Author: Kaiser Date: 03-05-2007, 19:17	Defamed at all points... Nice one!

Author: Lupta_Steaua
Date: 03-05-2007, 22:11

Overgame,

I agree with your point of view, however, I tend to agree with ikoon, as well.

Yes, we do want to see a CL with the best teams (but we probably should change the name, as this is no longer a league for the Champions).

In the same time, I believe that ikoon did not necessarily want Dinamo Zagreb instead of Arsenal. His point was around the fact that it is unfair to have a system where you have direct qualifiers to the CL money, and moreover, the other teams, which do not get direct accsess are still not out having one more chance at the UEFA Cup.

My point is qualify (as Liverpool did a few years back), and you will get credit.

Author: ikoon
Date: 03-05-2007, 22:51

@Overgame,

You're simply saying "you're system is not perfect, let's drop it and use a worst one (from the same point of view)". Even within the same season, a team can change a lot (Lyon/Milan are the 2 best examples).

No, this is what you are saying. I just want a better system, in my point of view; i explained already how, and i don't want to repeat anymore, because some people don't want to understand. But keep in mind, what you consider "worst", is just a matter of perspective.

Please, only Lyon won the title 6 times in a row. You should perhaps stop to claim non-sense everywhere.

Indeed, that was just a example from many others. Actually in England, like i said you know from the start of EPL, that Arsenal, MU, Chealsea and Liverpool, will gona take the 4 CL places; the only question is which team on which spot; no kind of competitvity over 4 CL spot in EPL. In Spain, It's hard to find 4 teams better than Real or Barca, in fact even one, same too many spots.

32-21=11, and they're playing against each other, and I don't see why a team like Dinamo Zagreb should take the place of Arsenal if they cannot beat them.

Hmm... because Dinamo Zagreb are champions and the only croatian representant in CL, and haven't been in CL for centuries, like too many countries, instead Arsenal just 4th english team are usual host in CL. Again you put the same question, for which you can only find the answer in balance between diversity and quality, but if i answer more detailed, you complain that i said the same thing. Then don't ask !!!

I said once more:

1. there are the best teams in Europe (no kind of spot limitation, to 4, 5 ,6...); this means Spain, England, Italy and STOP. -> good system

2. there is CL, wich means : Spain, England, Italy, France, Germany, Portugal, +/- Netherlands, +9 lucky lotery winners -> wors system

3. there is a more widely open competition, which recompensate the top countries, but to the extreme that is today. -> best system

As i've said a thousand times, i don't see why a team should replace a stronger one for the sake of seeing more champions in the CL.

Unfortunately for you! Some people do! This what CL also does to a small messure. It replace more competive teams from firs 3 countries, that had to play in UC, with at least 1 if not 2 teams from France, Germany and Portugal, which are allowed to play CL. But after 6th, UEFA stop replacing.

Again, i don't see why a weaker team should get a free pass for the sake of your eyes. If they cannot win against the others, why should they play the last16 ?

Because of too many others instead of just others. Your argument is sportively correct, but only if you refuse to define others, which you do; when others are 2/3 it is not corect anymore; to win 10p in CL and assure a 2nd place in CLGS is much thougher against 3 others than agains 2 others. Understood? Or i have to bore you again in the future with this "unrealistic fact".

Author: Overgame
Date: 03-05-2007, 23:39

'to win 10p in CL and assure a 2nd place in CLGS is much thougher against 3 others than agains 2 others.'

Remove one good team and add a weak one. That's basiccaly what's tou are saying.

'Indeed, that was just a example from many others. Actually in England, like i said you know from the start of EPL, that Arsenal, MU, Chealsea and Liverpool, will gona take the 4 CL places; the only question is which team on which spot; no kind of competitvity over 4 CL spot in EPL. In Spain, It's hard to find 4 teams better than Real or Barca, in fact even one, same too many spots.'

In fact, i've done a little check for the top3 in the last 5 years, and i haven't taken the Scandal in the Calcio into account.

Spain has sent 9 different teams in 5 years. The best result :

Barcelona : winner.
Real Madrid : 1/2.
Villareal : 1/2.
Deportivo : 1/2.
Valencia : 1/4.
Celta Vigo : 1/8.
Real Sociedad : 1/8.
Betis : GS.
Osasuna : qR3.

England has sent 6 different teams in 5 years. The best result :

Liverpool : winner.
Arsenal : runner-up.
Chelsea : 1/2.
Manchester : 1/2.
Newcastle : 1/8 (in fact, 2nd GS).
Everton : qR3.

Italy has sent 6 diufferent teams in 5 years (not taking into account Palermo to not add a false diversity).

Milan : winner.
Juventus : runner-up.
Inter : 1/2.
Roma : 1/4.
Lazio : GS.
Udinese : GS.

Spain is a wonderful counter-example of what you've said : a team outside the big 2 are able to reach a semi-final of the CL ! If Spain has too many spots, i don't think Belgium or Romania deserves one.

Betis, Vigo, Osasuna were 4th when they qualified for the GS, Deportivo was 3rd.

In england, you know the 4 teams in the CL ? In Scotland, Portugal, Netherlands, Russia, Ukraine, etc too, or more or less. I don't see the point there. Removing one spot and miss a big team to see a fight between 4 teams for 3 spots, and removing the last hope for everton to play the CL one day ?

Author: panda
Date: 04-05-2007, 07:41

Actually, last season, the fourth CL spot in England was not decided till the very end of the season.

But that's neither here nor there, surely. Everyone knows the fourth Cl regular arose because Abramovich bought Chelsea. That has nothing to do with any CL format.

As for clubs outside the big 4 competing for the CL places; actually most English football fans hope for that each year.

A new TV deal starts next season in England; it's worth about 90 million euro per YEAR for EACH club. Doing well in CL still matters a lot for the biggest clubs, the extra income of winning or going close is 30- 50 million euro ; but the problem if you want diversity is that this sort of domestic revenue is, in the short and medium term, going to attract investors to EPL, not to smaller markets.

Author: Dragonite
Date: 05-05-2007, 14:22

Porto-1978,

Sorry for not replying earlier. Only now I noticed you commented this subject: African players.

About your list, I don’t know where you got it, but…

Ousmane N’Doye, who played for Académica in 2005/2006 after playing for Penafiel and Estoril in previous seasons, this season he is on loan to an Saudi Arabian team.

His brother Dame N’Doye is currently in Académica squad, influenced by his elder brother success.

Both are good players, and it’s good to have them in our league. These are the kind of players Portuguese teams should also be signing.

Boavista has also an African player on loan. Zairi, the Moroccan, is on loan to Nantes. He is a big African player, one of the stars of the 2004 African Nations Cup. Boavista signed him near the end of the summer transfers window, and he was a “big signing”. Unfortunately he hasn’t adapted, was loaned and perhaps won’t even return.

Belenenses has a forward, Dady, who is scoring some goals in the League, and he is from Cape Verde. He isn’t in your list either, perhaps you considered him Portuguese.

Nacional has also a Cape Verde player- Zé Rui. He already played for Alverca, Vitória de Setúbal, Penafiel…

Braga also has an African player- Paíto. He is the Mozambican left back that played for Sporting and Vitória de Guimarães. You should know him.

Kevin Amuneke, who plays for Vitória de Setúbal right now, isn’t son of Emmanuel Amuneke, former Sporting and Barcelona player. Emannuel was born in 1970, Kevin in 1986… Unless Emmanuel was father at the age of 15/16, Kevin should be his brother.

No matter if they are 30, 40 or 50… like you said, it’s would be better if there were just 20 quality African players instead of 200 average African players.

The point is that from this 30/40/50 African players that play in Portugal now, many are “nobodies”. The only ones who are better than average are Mantorras, Edson, Sougou (who is Senegalese, not Cameroonian as you pointed), Mbesuma, Dário, Dame N’Doye, Freddy, Kevin Amuneke, Dady and Paíto: Just 10… and perhaps more 3 or 4.

It’s amazing how a player from Angola national team, Mendonça, one of the best Angolan players, is playing in the Portuguese 2nd league for Varzim! I hope next season he will be playing for a Primeira Liga club… At least one of the promoted teams- Leixões, Rio Ave or Vitória de Guimarães- should be smart enough to sign him.

Good African players who played for Portuguese teams over the last years:

André Macanga: Angola national team midfielder, a former FC Porto player who never played for them, was on loan to many teams and now is playing in Kuwait.

Fouhami: Académica goalkeeper in 2004, member of the Morocco 2004 ANC team.

Ayew: Ghana national team player, brother of Abedi Pelé, good player in the 90’s. Now returned to Portugal but is a shade of his former self.

Douala: Cameroon national team winger, Sporting player on loan to Portsmouth. Sporting should return him next season. He was a key player in the 2004/2005 UEFA Cup beaten finalist team.

Fary: Once a good striker, he was even the top scorer of the Portuguese league in 2002/2003. Currently plays for Boavista but he is no longer the player he once was.

Fertout: Morocco national team player in the 90’s who played 3 seasons for Belenenses.

Antchouet: Speedy Gabonese striker who played for Leixões, Belenenses, Vitória de Guimarães.

Meyong: Olympic Champion for Cameroon in 2000, member of theirs 2006 ANC squad, 2005/2006 top scorer of the Portuguese League; currently playing in Spain for Levante.

Chippo: Morocco national team player, played for FC Porto in the 90’s.

McCarthy: One of the best African players ever, everybody knows him; currently playing for Blackburn, 3rd best scorer in the Premier League.

Hassan Nader: Legend of Farense, he played the 1994 WC for Morocco and scored. Once was the top scorer of the Portuguese league, and played for Benfica 2 seasons: Retired.

Tahar: Morocco national team player, played for Benfica in the 90’s.

El Hadrioui: Morocco national team player, played for Benfica in the 90’s.

Naybet: Morocco national team player who played for Sporting in the 90’s. Left for Deportivo, and last season was playing for Tottenham.

Emmanuel Amuneke: Nigerian legend who played for Sporting and left for Barcelona: Retired

Saber: Morocco national team player who played for Sporting in the 90’s.

Mustapha Hadji: Morocco national team player who played for Sporting in the 90’s.

Enakarhire: Nigeria national team defender, played for Sporting in 2004/2005 UEFA Cup beaten finalist season. Currently plays for Bordeaux.

Yekini: Nigerian legend who played for Vitória de Setúbal in the 90’s. Retired

Benachour: Tunisia national team player who last season played for Vitória de Guimarães: Currently playing for Rubin Kazan.

As you can see, good African players played in Portugal through the years but they weren’t enough, in my opinion. They should have been much more. Douala, Antchouet, Meyong, McCarthy, Enakarhire should still be playing in Portugal.

There is other interesting thing. In the 90’s, many Morocco national team players played for Portuguese teams. Now there isn’t a single Moroccan playing in Portugal (except Zairi, loaned to Nantes, and perhaps a few “nobodies”). Has this something to do with the fact in the 90’s Morocco reached the WC finals (1994 and 1998) and this decade (2002 and 2006) Morocco missed them?

Portuguese teams don’t have scouts; they need the players right in front of theirs eyes’ on TV playing a World Cup to notice them?

Sorry if this is of-topic, but I wanted to reply. Anyway, other members of this forum have already let this discussion become of-topic.

Author: Polak
Date: 29-05-2007, 18:11

Well the topic is a bit old but I joined not so long ago so thought I would add my opinion. First of all I agree, unfortunately, greed is common and so is selfishness but I would not say it is human nature, it is just so common these days unfortunately. My opinion, even though it is probably not going to happen is yes, cut it down because right now the system is greatly favouring the big club. I support a team from the an avergae nation, maybe less. This is not the reason I want the change, it is partially because I would like to see the winner of my league get more of a chance of getting in to the Champions League, I mean, they are the Champions of the nation so they have a right to be in do they not?

The other reason as already mentioned is boredom, if you keep getting matches taht seem to happen nearly every year it gets a bit boring and that is even if they are big clubs. Chelsea v Barcelona was great. They met again a year later and I thought, the match before was great so I am excited about this one, but then it happened for a 3rd time and I thought, not again.

Let me not forget to answer a thing many individuals say that is against the cut down. I hear the argument, who wants to see, Legia Warsaw v Litex or Rosenborg v Dinamo Zagreb? Yeah those teams are not fashionable are they? If they got to play in the Champions League more, they might be. The truth is you get a lot of money for playing in the Champions League. Maybe for a big club it makes little difference but for one of the clubs mentioned, if they got 5 million euros a year for playing in the Champions League a few years in a row, it would make a difference, they would be able to strengthen the teams and do better and who knows in a while, get more success and maybe even eventually be challengers for the Champions League, then they would be teams that you enjoy to watch.

Author: badgerboy
Date: 29-05-2007, 19:02

Polak - two things to reply to in your post:

"The other reason as already mentioned is boredom, if you keep getting matches that seem to happen nearly every year it gets a bit boring and that is even if they are big clubs"

OK - you're not the only person to say that by any means - & I've even thought it myself about certain match-ups. But why do people feel this? In the domestic league you don't go - "Oh God. Not Man U v Arsenal/Chelsea/Liverpool - or Dinamo v Steaua/Rapid - or Celtic v Rangers - AGAIN". And these teams are sure to play every single year - four times in the case of Celtic & Rangers. These are the big games that everyone (or most people) looks forward to.

As for the money aspect. It's unfortunate that this can't be removed from the equation all together. If it was I'm sure the teams would carry on playing - just like they did before the "gravy train" started rolling - some teams would be worse - many would be better. But I find the current situation - where there is money - creates a Catch-22. I'm not sure whether you are from Poland (I guess maybe from your nickname?) - but it doesn't really matter as Poland illustrates my point quite well.

Personally I don't think the CL money makes a huge difference (a little bit of course but not much) to smaller league teams competing against the big European teams. If it did - to use my favourite examples - why aren't Anderlecht & Olympiakos more competitive after playing the grooup stage year after year? The domestic leagues of the big five countries (or at least the biggest clubs in the case of Italy & Spain) are just too wealthy for that.

In Poland you just had two surprise teams (at least for me) fight out the title. Zaglebie Lubin I think are the richest club in Poland - though I don't think that's quite as meaningful as "Richest club in England" - whereas Belchatow are a small team. But if Wisla or Legia (the bigget clubs by tradition) had played CL for the past three or four seasons they might still struggle to match the best European clubs but they'd probably be dominating the Polish league thanks to all the extra CL money (because as you said - for these clubs the £5M+ does make a huge difference).

So - in an ultimately doomed attempt to close the "wealth gap" between the best team in Poland (or any number of other European countries) & the best teams in the wealthiest countries you just create additional imbalances within all the other domestic leagues.

Since I don't see "total revenue redistribution" (Man U, Chelsea etc. have to share all their money with the rest of the English league, Steaua with the Romanian teams etc.) ever happening the best hope for more CL "equality" is for the football bubble to burst so that billionaire investors, TV companies etc. lose interest - noone is paying silly money anymore & the players go on playing just like they always have....

Author: Dragonite
Date: 29-05-2007, 19:09

Polak,

There is an obvious problem. The Champions League is a tournament of 32 teams. There are 52 UEFA members. So, even if the CL was just a Champions tournament, and there were no 2nd, 3rd and 4th placed teams, every year there would still be 20 nations whose champion wasn’t represented.

The old system had a lot of “empires”- Real Madrid winning 5 Champions Cups in a row, Benfica 2 in a row, Inter 2 in a row, Ajax 3 in a row, Bayern 3 in a row… AC Milan 2 in a row.

AC Milan reaching the 1993 (loser), 1994 (winner) and 1995 (loser) finals;
Ajax reaching the 1995 (winner) and 1996 (loser) finals;
Juventus reaching the 1996 (winner), 1997 (loser) and 1998 (loser) finals;

Ever since the CL was expanded to 32 teams and some nations started to have 4 teams playing, these “empires” no longer happen.

The “nearest” to “empires” that have happened ever since were:

Real Madrid in the 1998, 2000 and 2002 finals (missing the 1999 and 2001);
Bayern Munich in the 1999 and 2001 finals (missing the 2000);
Valencia in the 2000 and 2001 finals (lost both);
AC Milan in the 2003, 2005 and 2007 finals (missing the 2004 and 2006 finals, and being beaten finalist in 2005);
FC Porto winning the 2003 UEFA Cup and the 2004 CL (two consecutive trophies but different trophies, not 2 CL’s);
Liverpool in the 2005 and 2007 finals (missing the 2006);

In the “old days” these teams would have an easier life to reach the latest stages of the CL and even winning it.

You consider “boring” to watch Chelsea vs. Barcelona 3 consecutive years.

I ask you, wasn’t also “boring” to watch Juventus 3 consecutive years in the CL final??

If you read other topic somewhere on this forum, you’ll see that I think the CL could be changed- but only small changes.

Author: Ricardo
Date: 29-05-2007, 22:08

I just read an interview with Jeu Sprengers Dutch ex-finance man of Uefa (ex, because he was against Platini). He said that it's ridiculous to take away the 4th team from the top-4(!) as they bring in 85% of the money. And then I wonder, how much money are taking away again of it 80%? Would it be such a loss to decrease the total budget a bit? It sounded like these countries buy their way in the CL. Of course the teams prove every year that they can match the quality of the CL, but I got to admit that after PSV was out I have maybe watched a total of 60 minutes CL. Maybe I missed some great football, but it was 'boring' again Chelsea-Liverpool, again Milan. i rather have Milan win it 3 times in a row with every time 3 other different semi teams, then like this.

Can we still go back? No. Probably not even back to max. 3 teams per country. I don't think Platini gets it done. I'd prefer to go back to 2, to keep some quality, but also more diversity, more champions. How can a team that was 4th last year and 3rd this year in its own league be Champion of Europe?

Re: The true reason(s) to change the CL format
Author: moro Date: 29-05-2007, 22:19	Great point Ricardo. Agree 100% Badgerboy talked about that film "groundhog day"; he likes it.

Re: The true reason(s) to change the CL format
Author: Ricardo Date: 29-05-2007, 22:32	Actualy that film is one of my favorites too, though that stays becaus I only have watched it 3 times in 20 years

Author: badgerboy
Date: 30-05-2007, 00:28

"He said that it's ridiculous to take away the 4th team from the top-4(!) as they bring in 85% of the money. And then I wonder, how much money are taking away again of it 80%? Would it be such a loss to decrease the total budget a bit?"

In some ways I agree. The trouble is UEFA - & FIFA for that matter - whatever their rhetoric about "sporting principles" & such also behave like businesses. It's all about maximising profits, revenue streams, marketing partners etc. Of course most of the money is redistibuted - although I'm sure the UEFA/FIFA executives all like their expense accounts. But then everyone is greedy. I read somewhere that a lot of smaller clubs (or national asociations) don't want the big countries to lose teams from the competition. Why? Because they also know it would mean less money to "redistribute" & once their noses are in the trough they also want "maximum profit".

Re: The true reason(s) to change the CL format
Author: blue_shark Date: 30-05-2007, 10:04	it is possible that when a country with small market potential, such as romania (just an example), will have 4 teams, they realize that top 3 countries don't bring in so much money and take away that 4th team. it would be kind of unfair to change it just when romania would hit the top. just kidding. hey, they cancelled the golden boot because of romania.

Author: ikoon
Date: 30-05-2007, 10:04

"once their noses are in the trough" - this cannot happen. "Their noses" will never be trough.

I understand very well, what is behind UEFA rethoric and principles. The problem is they "maximase" proffits in the wrong way. The correct way is to take 16 clubs, which fans payed the biggest money fee for TV rights in the last year and give them direct access, no matter of nationality or league position; champions from the rest (which are not included in the first category) should play against eachother in q rounds, for another 16 spots.

Football became more and more a "supply and demand" phenomenum; why shouldn't UEFA take steps to improove the quality and accuracy of this phenomenum?

Fans pay football tickets to watch their favorite team (the only reason); they also pay a TV sport channel bill with the same purpose, they buy their favorite teams presence in european competition so we have to give what they pay for.

The european competitons are in fact a limited stock that can be purchase in open auction. It is very logical like the fans which pay the biggest fee to end up with the largest european presence.

I think that things should be taken to the next step for "maximasing" the proffits. The fans which pay more money to a match tickets income, their team should win the match. Because that's why they pay the ticket or TV bill to see their team winning, not to see a contest.

UEFA have a very accurate eye, and they act like a player agent, they help the player who give them the biggest percent from contract, to get a better deal. It is nothing wrong about this. This is how the things work. Don't chage a thing.

Author: ikoon
Date: 30-05-2007, 10:40

I reevaluate the whole situation and i agree with the opinions expressed by badgerboy and others, that taking 4th spot from 3 countries is pointless and we cannot obtain the right effect, shock on the CL. Meaning we cannot raise the diversity this way.

We can obtain the desired diversity, only by giving direct access to champions, at least 16 of them and taking more than 1 spot from first 6 countries. At least such a radical change, will be ao badly seen by top clubs, that they will finaly decide do give us a break and made their own toy to play with. Either way, i will be definatively mmore happy than i'am now.

I hope that in the future, the wheel will turn arround, and the fans which pay more, will choose what teams don't want to see in Europe. I have a full list prepared for that moment (even if i let it like a legacy); the english teams are on top; i don't like their playing non-tehnical style and the fact that they win almost nothing, giving the opportunities they have. I think that even Portugal have more trophies than they have, and how pathetic is that.

Re: The true reason(s) to change the CL format
Author: cosmin_ultrasteaua Date: 30-05-2007, 11:10	" i don't like their playing non-tehnical style and the fact that they win almost nothing, giving the opportunities they have" I don't think you're talking about Liverpool here.

Re: The true reason(s) to change the CL format
Author: panda Date: 30-05-2007, 11:15 Edited by: panda at: 30-05-2007, 11:20	@ikoon Just to clarify when badgerboy writes 'once their noses are in the trough' he does not mean 'through', he DOES mean 'trough.' Trough is the thing that holds the food pigs eat out of, so 'once their noses are in the trough' means 'once they (uefa/ clubs who get revenue, whoever) start eating in a greedy way like pigs do.'

Author: Polak
Date: 30-05-2007, 11:53

Just to comment on the post right after mine, I understand what you say, let me tell you one other thing that makes the format now seem a bit unfair.

Do you know why I like watching a Euro competition or World Cup so much? I like it because a nation has 1 team in it, you get one chance. In the Champions League some nations get more than one chance. Image saying to Spain or Italy, by the way, you can have 4 teams at the next World Cup okay, even if you get eliminated 3 times you are still in with a shot. Now I know clubs often do not care about fellow clubs from their nation. If Barcelona go out they are not going to hope that at least a Spanish club wins it for them but this concerns the fans more, some of them might think like that.

Dragonite if there were 32 places given to 32 clubs from 32 seperate nations it would be better. This year there were only 15 nations represented if I counted right. That leaves 37 out. Having 32 in it would be a big improvement.

As for the boring statement, well, I know there are constant repeats of matches in the league but that is expected, in the Champions League it should be different, you have draws of the 2nd round and 1/4 final draws and they are exciting because it is expected that you are going to play someone different.

On to another thing, I agree with there being a limit to foreign players, why not go all the way and say, instead of the rule allowing no more than 3 non EU players in a sqaud, how about, no more than 3 foreign players in a squad, for the season and Champions League. This would make life so much more difficult for clubs like Arsenal or Inter Milan who rely on buying their players from other countries. Lyon might well be the best as most of their players actually are French.

I doubt we are going to see 1 team each from a country as then it would lose popularity for football, although I doubt it would lose that much popularity, maybe only for those who watch Barcelona to see Ronaldinho or Arsenal to see Henry etc. It would lose UEFA money and that is their main concern. It would also mean the UEFA Cup would probably need to be abolished because it could mean there were more exciting matches in UEFA's secondary competition than their primary competition, unless it was no more considered secondary, but then it would be as if there were 2 different Champions League's on the same level. Eliminating the UEFA Cup would also mean only 32 teams from the whole of Europe can play in Europe, the rest would not, and UEFA would not have that. The least I ask for is to cut down the amount of teams allowed, maybe not to 1, but at least cut it down a bit to allow other nations a chance and maybe put in a maximum foreigners allowed rule. Believe me at first the little clubs might go out a lot and lose by a lot but after getting some money from playing in the Champions League and also after getting some experience of constantly playing clubs that are of a high level I think they would improve. I agree also there would be an imbalance in domestic leagues with the money being given to say, the top teams in Poland, but that is why limiting the amount of foreigners would ease that a bit, hopefully.

Author: panda
Date: 30-05-2007, 12:02

@polak

I think on idealistic grounds you are right. The foreigner rule would be very difficult to enforce now, given EU law, and the way football has gone after the Bosman case (i.e. footballers to be treated like other workers)

The other problem is the polarisation of talent into the biggest clubs; we often hear on the forum that uefa agrees with giving a good deal to these biggest clubs because otherwise there is nothing to stop them breaking away.

Re: The true reason(s) to change the CL format
Author: moro Date: 30-05-2007, 12:31	@Polak I'm one of those "bored". But now that my country (Romania) is in position to get soon 3 places in CL, I'm OK with it... people changes... The thing is that we cant throw out best teams because we risk a separation, the G14 or 18 might be mad. It's something to watch out.

Re: The true reason(s) to change the CL format
Author: Overgame Date: 30-05-2007, 12:42	"Lyon might well be the best as most of their players actually are French." Milan : 7 italians ...... What do you want for the CL ? I'm not sure if i want to see Anderlecht in the last 8 after games against the champion of Cyprus, Iceland and a better one : Bulgaria. I want to see games between the best teams in Europe, that's all.

Re: The true reason(s) to change the CL format
Author: moro Date: 30-05-2007, 13:43	I dont. I'd rather like to sleep with a natural beautiful lady, than a prostitute full of sillicone (f.ex. Chelsea).

Author: badgerboy
Date: 30-05-2007, 14:01

"it would be kind of unfair to change it just when romania would hit the top. just kidding. hey, they cancelled the golden boot because of romania".

Funny, I came across that story in an old issue of World Soccer the other day.

Now you give me a chance to share!

"The original competition was launched in 1967 and brought to a standstill in 1991 after growing dissatisfaction over manipulation of the statistical system then in use...

...a serious threat emerged from eastern Europe, where a handful of authoritarian officials saw the Golden Shoe as a vehicle for both sporting and political propaganda.

The most notorious case was that of Romania's Rodion Camataru, who won the 1986-87 award by scoring 44 goals for Dinamo Bucharest.... By the start of May 1987, with Dinamo having played 25 of their scheduled 34 League games, Camataru had claimed a modest 19 goals... Then on May 3, Camataru suddenly came alive - scoring four goals in the first hour in Dinamo's 4-4 draw with neighbours Victoria Bucharest. The next week hew scored a penalty in another draw, this time with Petrolul Ploesti. It was his seventh penalty of the season".

(Dinamo then played a decisive match with Steaua - a 1-1 draw which meant Steaua were virtually sure to be Champions & Dinamo sure to be in Europe).

"It was from this moment when, to all intents and purposes, Dinamo had little left to play for, that Camataru hit a streak of form unique to his entire career. In seven matches inside one month and one day, he scored no fewer than 21 goals.

Yet Dinamo, Fantastically, won only two of those seven games"

Author: moro
Date: 30-05-2007, 14:17

Well, in the next number of the WS you'll read about one of next season where the actual trainer of Romania (V Piturca) - playing at Steaua, lost the fight for the Golden boot against D Mateut from Dinamo. I dont know numbers and years, but at the time everything was fake in football except the value of Steaua and Dinamo players.
I remember the team from the village where Ceausescu was born, winning 11-0 to be promoted in first division. Of course, it was the exact score they needed. If i'm not wrong, Piturca also was involved.

Author: badgerboy
Date: 30-05-2007, 14:22
Edited by: badgerboy
at: 30-05-2007, 14:55

Back "on topic".

Unfortunately this is an almost endless topic without solutions.

If - as Polak prefers - you had 32 different teams (Champions) the gulf between the best & the worst would be huge. Of course this change wont happen because UEFA etc. are afraid of the consequences -which would I guess be a European Superleague.

But imagine for a moment it could. There might still be enough money in the coffers to keep Anderlecht the dominant team in Belgium, Dinamo Zagreb in Croatia, Serif Tiraspol in Moldova etc. but those teams would still be way below the level of the top teams. So year after year you get the same teams qualifying - the same matches - only this time you know (barring the odd major surprise every three or four years) who is going to win. At least with Barcelona - Chelsea or Man Utd - Bayern Munich etc. you never know before who will.

I'm English - so of course I'm happy to see 4 English clubs in the CL. But as a "fan" of European football overall it would be great to see 32 (or even 20) different Champions in the CL - all of whom had decent possibilities to compete with the top teams & make many interesting matches. But I don't want to see 32 (or 20) massively unequal teams competing just so UEFA can say: "we gave everyone a game. Sorry it was boring & one-sided."

How to create a situation where the top teams from countries outside the top 5 can compete on a level playing field with those in it is one of the big problems of modern football. I don't have an answer - & I don't think anyone else does either.

Foreigner rules (even non-EU foreigner rules in my opinion) - whatever their sporting merits - are basically illegal under EU law -so aren't a feasible solution.

Re: The true reason(s) to change the CL format
Author: moro Date: 30-05-2007, 14:29 Edited by: moro at: 30-05-2007, 14:29	Bboy Here some statistics about Romania (all rankings from the beginning) http://www.labtof.ro/diviziaa/ In the 1987..8..9 period, top teams scored about 120-130 goals/season.