Forum

xml	No replies possible in the archive

Author: cmd
Date: 15-04-2007, 02:58

Celtic will not get a Pot B bid, because they got passed by 3 teams who accumulated points in the UEFA cup. 2 of these teams picked up more points than Celtic solely because they got to play 4 more games (Benfica and AZ). What can be done to avoid these situations? It seems that good, but not great teams with a decent chance to make the knockout stage, from not as strong countries are resigned to a vicious cycle. Make the knockout, but likely get fewer games and be forced to a situation where you are more likely to make the UEFA cup the next year, get to play a few more games, and move back to just above the borderline between a CL/UC team. (This is all assuming that teams would prefer a CL knockout to even a UEFA Cup championship)

Author: Lupta_Steaua
Date: 15-04-2007, 09:09

cmd,

I guess the best thing to do about the situation was not to be knocked out by Artmedia.

Otherwise, from your post one could understand that being in pot B is more important than being a team capable of making the knock-out stage. I would say this is kind of contradictory.

But it does prove the importance of the seeding status and the difficiulty for the other teams to move up. We might say that fortunatelly we also have the UEFA Cup, where some teams can get better coefficients and be able to hope for a CL knock-out stage as pot B teams.

Re: celtic got hosed?
Author: moro Date: 15-04-2007, 09:43	Celtic in pot B??? Why? Sevilla also passed Celtic with Uefa points. And they are 2 classes over Celtic.

Re: celtic got hosed?
Author: londonium Date: 17-04-2007, 14:45	"And they are 2 classes over Celtic." What does that mean? This sort of coeff issue will just roll on and on if the inferior UEFA cup is classed as the same as the CL. However there doesn't seem to be a resonable alternative. (As an aside Celtic also benefited from the situation with extra coeff points in 2003)

Author: mikesha
Date: 17-04-2007, 18:31

If Celtic aspire to the level of Champions League last 16*, then they are in a no lose situation.

From Pot C there will be 2 scenarios:

- draw a Pot B team who is artificially seeded*, thereby Celtic should finish above them and qualify for the last 16, generating revenue and high profile.

- get a draw of death like a few years back (AC Milan and Barca), have 2 awesome Celtic Park nights, 2 glamorous away days for the fans, loads of high profile exposure and tv revenue, and then probably drop into the UEFA cup where they should go far* and pick up plenty of co-efficient points.

The * points are making the assumptions that you believe Celtic have a right to a top 16 place in Europe and that the UEFA cup offers unfair co-efficient points in comparison to ones gained in the Champions League.

Of course to do this, you would have to ignore the fact that Celtic have made the last 16 of the Champions League only once and the reason they have been so highly ranked for the last 5 years is because around one-third of their ranking points came from one season in the .... UEFA cup!!

Celtic most certainly haven't been hosed.

Re: celtic got hosed?
Author: moro Date: 17-04-2007, 21:06	Celtic also took benefit from playing in a weak league, where there's only two teams playing football 90% of seasons since 1764. Dont start telling us uefa cup coef-points for Sevilla or Steaua or other teams are wortheless regarding CL achievements of Glasgow teams - Celtic simply cant play in UC, because they are forced to play in CL almost every year.

Author: carpediem
Date: 17-04-2007, 21:41

I think the telling part of this posting is that teams can gain many more coeff points in the Uefa Cup playing inferior opposition than competing in the CL.

Celtic had a fairly successful European campaign this season - defeating Man U, Benfica, and Copenhagen at home and drawing with Milan (over 180 mins) home and away. Yet, despite all this, they gained less coeff points than their city rivals Rangers who played inferior teams this season in the Uefa Cup.

Surely something is not right here ....

Re: celtic got hosed?
Author: moro Date: 17-04-2007, 22:18	Pretty good team, but once again, too easy for them to get into CL, while other teams in Europe have to struggle a lot to get there.

Author: Overgame
Date: 18-04-2007, 00:56

Too easy ? Man, you should, probably, start to open your eyes.

'but once again, too easy for them to get into CL'

Frankly, they are CHAMPION of a top10 country, but the qualification is 'too easy' ? If the country was ranked '10th', that's just because they won enough games to be there ! And with only 2 good teams, they won MORE than Belgium or Ukraine ! Please, you should perhaps try to avoid no-sense in your posts.

P.S. and they reached the 1/8, winning against Benfica !
No, the qualification is not 'too easy'.

Re: celtic got hosed?
Author: moro Date: 18-04-2007, 08:24	Overgame, it's time for you to pass to the next level, you're boring us. Scotland is in top ten "because" of Celtic and Rangers. I dont even remember another scottish team in GS of any competition last 5 years.

Author: moro
Date: 18-04-2007, 10:05

Overgame, thank you for this moment you offered me for free, I enjoyed checking the results of scottish teams last 7 years.
WOW!!!

This top ten country as you called-it, sent every year great teams like Hearts, Dumferline, Dundee or Gretna, to score maximum 5 points (in case of excellent season), often 1-3 points/year/team. That's what we all recognise as high-quality-teams.
This message should surely help you to advance with the understanding of my phrase "Celtic cant go to Uefa Cup, they're forced to go in CL by a really-really weak league". They simply dont have the choice, must do their points in CL.

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

The fact that the two countries vieing for 10th place this year (Scotland & Ukraine) only have two teams with any sort of European reputation at all in recent years (OK Dnipro's UEFA Cup performance in 04-05 was better than Hearts) just shows that to be a top 10 country that's all you need.

Outside the top 7 countries (on the 2006 ranking) there isn't a country with three or more teams that perform consistently in Europe year after year. Any country that gets three teams doing well in the same season or two performing consistently well most seasons is a top 10 contender.

Performance of Scottish "Big two"

2002-03
Celtic CLQR3 (lost to Basle), UEFA Cup Final (lost to Porto)
Rangers UEFAR1 (lost to Viktoria Zizkov)

2003-04
Celtic CLGS (3rd) UEFA Cup QF (lost to Villarreal)
Rangers CLGS (4th)

2004-05
Celtic CLGS (4th)
Rangers CLQR3 (lost to CSKA Moscow) UEFA Cup GS (4th)

2005-06
Celtic CLQR2 (lost to Artmedia)
Rangers CLL16 (lost to Villarreal)

2006-07
Celtic CLL16 (lost to Milan)
Rangers UEFAL16 (lost to Osasuna)

So it could be argued that this is the first season in five (possibly the second if you count 03-04) that both Scottish teams have performed well. And one major achievement in 5 seasons (Celtic's UEFA Cup Final). Interestingly - in coefficient terms - the 2002-03 season was matched exactly by 2003-04 (just a quarter-final & CL group elimination).

So actually it's not even necessary to have two teams performing consistently to make the top 10. This isn't an attempt to knock the Scottish teams by the way - just to point out that it's possible for any country to vie for 10th (or 9th?) place without having three or four good (in European terms) teams or even two very good ones...

Re: celtic got hosed?
Author: neill Date: 18-04-2007, 14:01	moro, Hearts reached the UEFA Cup group stage in 2004/05 and also played at the same stage in 2003/04 (when there was no group stage) and have a co-efficient of over 20 points. Admittedly, Scotland's other representatives have been worse than useless.

Re: celtic got hosed?
Author: Overgame Date: 18-04-2007, 15:53	And ? Frankly, put Madrid in Malta : Malta could be a top10 country, and Madrid would deserves their spot. I don't where the strength of the league should be a factor of the pot in CL ! So please, go back watch your TV.

Author: moro
Date: 18-04-2007, 18:31

Overgame, I dont know who's TV you're talking about, your answer is a bit confusing, the ideea I had here is that scottish ch-ship is weak, that Celtic and GR get every year CL spots much easier than other teams from no matter what country, top or not. And it's obvious that they could get points almost exclusively from CL, so it's not wright to claim top pot and pretend Uefa Cup team-ranking points are worthless or almost...
On the other hand, Badgerboy pointed out another thing, that Romania belong to top8-10 with no doubt. Three good teams to perform well. Now we'll have two spots in CL, like Ukraine and Scotland, let's see what we'll be able to do with.

Author: badgerboy
Date: 18-04-2007, 19:09

"On the other hand, Badgerboy pointed out another thing, that Romania belong to top8-10 with no doubt".

Woo, steady there moro. It costs money to quote me & even more to misquote.

My intention with the "Romania best of the rest" topic was to show that Romania's performance this year was 8th best purely on points achieved. And noone could reasonably argue their current performance level wasn't up to that of a top 8-10 country. This was contrary to my own expection that a performance like this year's (from any country with 5 teams or less) - one team in CL group stage, two teams in UEFA last 32 & 1 in groups, other one or two teams (if you had them) doing little or nothing - would be a performance that ranked you somewhere between 11-17.

As I point out in my earlier post in this thread though achievements of a countries teams don't have to be "outstanding" - certainly not consistently so - to challenge for a top ten place.

From Romania's perspective I'd conclude that it might be easier than a lot of people think for them to sustain such a position. Not because their teams are more brilliant than a lot of others assume but because they don't have to be.

Re: celtic got hosed?
Author: moro Date: 18-04-2007, 21:45	And how much would this costs? I didnt quote you, so I guess it's gonna be free this time.If you consider such country may pretend top ten with two teams playing balls, then Romania, with 3 teams playing is definitively upper. Axioma. By the way, i wouldnt call scottish teams performance consistent.

Re: celtic got hosed?
Author: dinamo_fan_4_ever Date: 19-04-2007, 00:34	poor celtic. got just about 15 million from uefa. deer celtic: plz play uefa cup and let steaua, dinamo , rapid or cfr get hosed asa well. we wont complain. p.s. hell, barca got hosed ))

Author: badgerboy
Date: 19-04-2007, 01:37

"By the way, i wouldnt call scottish teams performance consistent".

Exactly my point. Scotland can be 10th with just one really good performance & two or three pretty good performances from their two best teams in five years & despite a couple of disasters (Celtic's loss to Artmedia, Rangers to Zizkov).

For Ukraine - Dinamo Kiev have had one good CL season (2004-05) when they were unlucky not to progress to the last 16 but have done nothing in the spring campaigns in the UEFA Cup and of course they had the Thun disaster to match Celtic's with Artmedia. Shakhtar played well this year but haven't achieved anything outstanding in recent seasons (1 UEFA last 16 after CL 3rd) - otherwise some last 32s & UEFA R1 KO's.

Even Russia - who I see as the most logical contender for 8th. OK - CSKA were pretty good in the CL & of course UEFA Cup two years ago.
But you had Lokomotiv losing to Zulte - & last year to Rapid Wien (who got 0 pts in group stage). CSKA themselves were pretty poor in last year's UEFA Cup & had their own CLQR2 disaster against Vardar Skopje a few years ago too.

Author: cookiemonster
Date: 21-04-2007, 00:30

Why are you arguing that scottish teams don't deserve to be in the top ten? Yes Rangers and Celtic's results haven't been amazing, but they are better than those of the teams in 11th 12th, 13th etc -thus their top 10 status. It just shows how big the clubs are, that dispite the poor results of our 3rd and 4th ranked representatives we are still ranked so highly.

It seems that when one of the Old firm do well the other do very badly..hopefully soon they will have a good season together. I predict that in the next couple of years we will do better and move up a place or two. Hearts, Hibs and even Aberdeen seem to be improving and are starting to compete in the league.

Scotland only have a population of 5 million people and manage to have 2 good teams. Some of the bigger nations don't even have 1!

ps The original point was basically that its unfair for teams to be able to get more points competing in the easier Uefa cup competition...which is a fair point!

Re: celtic got hosed?
Author: moro Date: 21-04-2007, 09:48	It's also true that Celtic and Rangers grab enough money from CL, os they can buy good players, and that it's X-time easier for them to go in CL than for other good central or eastern Eu-teams. Because in a league with 12 teams, from wich 6 of them never saw european Cups, there's no opposition.

Author: badgerboy
Date: 21-04-2007, 12:49

"Why are you arguing that scottish teams don't deserve to be in the top ten?"

If that question is aimed at me (sorry I'm not sure) I'm not arguing for a second that Scotland shouldn't be in the top ten.

I'm arguing that what you need to achieve in order to reach 10th (or 9th, or 8th) isn't actually that earth-shattering.

You don't have to have good third & fourth teams. And even the two top teams can have at least two out of five bad or indifferent years.

It's a beacon of hope to quite a few of the countries ranked between 11-21 (& some even below that). Study the results of Scottish, (& Ukrainian, Belgian, even Russian...) teams over the past five years. And ask yourself - is it really such a huge leap of imagination to see our teams getting similar results in the future?

Re: celtic got hosed?
Author: Meatball Date: 21-04-2007, 13:59	@Moro: Are you actually criticizing the Scottish Leage for a lack of diversity? In the last 20 years only Celtic or Rangers won the title in Scotland, not very exciting I agree. But looking at the last 20 years in Romania, how many teams not coming from Bucarest won the title? Universitatea Craiova in 1 year. I think you shouldn't throw stones, sitting in a glass house...

Author: moro
Date: 21-04-2007, 18:42

Oh, my house is very solid.
I find bizzare that a league with 12 teams have 33 to 41% of them in Europe, but if coefficients says so, let it be. Not throwing stones. Trying to dispute a little those claiming uefa points arent valuable, while Celtic and Rangers got a lot of money from a CL where they have guarantee acces almost every year.
In Romania's league it's not like in France, Germany or Holland, there are usually 5 teams from the main town (Dinamo, National, Rapid, Sportul, Steaua in alphabetical order), sometimes even 6 (Rocar). This make about 30% of teams and could explain why title rests in Bucarest, together with the financial reason (more money in this town).

Author: badgerboy
Date: 22-04-2007, 11:50

"This make about 30% of teams and could explain why title rests in Bucarest, together with the financial reason (more money in this town)".

Come on Moro. It's not like the six Bucharest teams share the title out between them. It's mostly Dinamo & Steaua - with the occasional appearance by Rapid.

I don't see a huge difference between Romania & Scotland just because Romania has more teams in it's top division. I'm sure some people would argue for a 10 or 12 team top league in Romania and others for 16 or 18 in Scotland.

On paper I always prefer the latter option (minimum 16 teams playing each other twice) but I guess in some places the alternative works better. Scottish teams want three or four games a year against Celtic & Rangers etc.

Re: celtic got hosed?
Author: moro Date: 22-04-2007, 12:22	The difference was made some year where Romania get lost on the mediocrity forest,, while Scotland had two teams in CL, money came in and so on... Still, i find bizzare to have 12 teams league. In Bucarest FC National was pretty good team, almost won a title some 5-6 yeras ago, I dont remember exactly. Sportul was close to won it last year also.

Author: exile
Date: 23-04-2007, 13:58

Scotland are not the only small country to go along the "small league" route - Austria, for one, have done the same thing.

There is still debate within Scotland about league size - many would prefer a 16 or 18 team league. The "big league" format was abandoned due to the number of mismatches - when Celtic were in their best period in the late 60s and early 70s they won league matches 9-1, 8-1, and often scored six. What wasn't taken into account was how exceptional that Celtic team was - some of the big scores were against teams with a good record in Europe eg Dundee, Kilmarnock and Hibernian.

Today, with 100% capacity crowds guaranteed for Celtic and Rangers matches, I think we could go back to a larger league with little negative impact, if a format could be found to guarantee 18 or so home games. NB from 1955 to 1975 teams were guaranteed 20 home games, 17 league and 3 league cup.

Author: dinamo_fan_4_ever
Date: 23-04-2007, 15:56

scotland and ukraine, very similar, they have 2 strong, almost constant teams that play in europe. rangers, celtic, dynamo and shahtar are very good teams. respectable, good results once in a while, good players, good budgets. if this is how football is managed in their countries thats it... 2 good teams and all the rest far away from them. its not that ukraine or scotland don't deserve a top 10 spot ( and who are we to judge), they do, if both teams reach a semifinal than the overall coeff would be of a top 6 country. the reson the are only on 10-12 is because the top 2 teams dont reach the final phases, while the other 2 are pulling the coeffs back.

the difference between romania and scotland is that here its a little more diversity, especially this year when there are 4 good teams in the top. until now there were 3, of cause not as goodas celtic or sahtior but they were 3 instead of 2. presently all 3 teams play better than 2-3 years ago while the top 2 scotland didnt improove.

than there was the nr of teams/year where romania had 3/3 and we jumped over scotland and ukraine.

what i think is that countries like holland, portugal,greece, romania, turkey, russia, cz.republic, maybe israel and bulgaria will little by little climb in the rankings due to having more teams that can gain pts. while countries like: scotland, belgium, switzeralnd, norway will fall back some spots. just my opinion.

Re: celtic got hosed?
Author: Laudrup1 Date: 25-04-2007, 11:42	Cookiemonster speaks the most sense on this thread. I agree with his views. Rangers and Celtic find it very tough to qualify for the CL groups (if no automatic qualification is forthcoming) coming from a small nation. It's hard to keep the co-efficient at 9th or 10th when the other teams perform poorly. Hardly Rangers and Celtics fault though.

Re: celtic got hosed?
Author: exile Date: 25-04-2007, 14:58	Really? Celtic and Rangers got the financial rules changed so that teams retained 100% of home receipts rather than sharing with the visitors. That made a big difference to the other clubs. So - their opposition got weaker - and now they complain there is no real opposition and blame other clubs for the Old Firm's own poor performances (Artmedia etc).

Author: cmd
Date: 27-04-2007, 03:30

the one thing i touched on that no one has responded to (correct me if im wrong though) is how Benfica and AZ got 4 more games than Celtic this year by being in the UC instead of the CL. What can be done to fix that part? Is there some possible process to statistically normalize a team's coefficient so that there is less of an advantage in just playing more games without actually playing better football?

Author: Aliceag
Date: 27-04-2007, 04:41

It's the price to pay! Celtic wanted to win CL or not? If not, why playing it?

IF somebody asked Celtic before: do you want to reach UC quarter finals and play 4 more games, or get knocked out on 1/8 CL?

Probably they would answer the first one.

The problem is: you never KNOW before!

So, every team plays to win every game, so any team in CL wants to pass the group stage and tries to play the 1/8, believing they are gonna skip to 1/4 and so on... So there's really no chance and no point. You want to get further? ok, you win prestige and good receipts from great games: celtic playing milan got them money, prestige and experience.

Benfica just walked trough dinamo and PSG and knocked out by Espanyol. Not very good teams...

Last year they faced Liverpool. would they rather become 3rd? No! they even passed liverpool! Like Celtic could had passed milan this year... then they were knocked out by Barcelona. So what? I Bet Benfica fans and Coaches were more pleased with last season Benfica performance than this year's one, even if they collected more points this year.

Porto performance was also better than Benfica. They got 2nd place and were knocked out by Chelsea by 1 goal. I bet Porto in UC would win it. So I guess there's a price to pay: You want to play with the best you get less coeff points, you play with peanuts you can win more coeff points, but win less other stuff. CL bonuses already cover many losses.

Re: celtic got hosed?
Author: Overgame Date: 27-04-2007, 07:50	Ok, if i follow the argument : 'You win, but finally you get less coefficient points is normal, just because you won too much games before".

Author: badgerboy
Date: 27-04-2007, 11:08

The important thing to remember in all these discussions is the real lack of significance of coefficients in the eyes of players & managers (even given the remote chance they've heard of them).

For me these days the CL is the real premier competition. I disagree with Aliceag & would say that Celtic players would much rather play CL last 16 & match themselves against the very best teams - even if they lose - than go further in the UEFA Cup. Maybe give them the UEFA Cup trophy in exchange & they would take it - but semi-final etc.? Personally, I don't think so.

With the coefficients - it's a fact of life (one we've discussed the pros & cons of many times) that winning games against weaker teams in the UEFA Cup is worth as many points as beating good ones in the CL.

AZ & Celtic started in R1 of their respective competitions. Had both teams ended up winning the whole thing they would've had exactly the same number of points available - AZ would've had to play two more games (last 32) but Celtic's 4 bonus points supposedly compensate for this.

As it was Celtic P8 W3 D1 L4. If you add in their bonus points as "won games" you could say P10 W5 D1 L4.

AZ went a round further - P12 W5 D5 L2. Plus got a bonus for reaching the UEFA QF.

Take out the "quality of opposition" factor & AZ's record was better. Factor in "quality of opposition" & you want a much more complicated ranking system.

Half points for UEFA Cup? Maybe - but then why should Espanyol get less points for beating Benfica (& Bremen for that matter) in the UEFA Cup than Manchester United, Chelsea, Barcelona - or Celtic - for beating the same team in the Champions League?

Re: celtic got hosed?
Author: munich1860 Date: 27-04-2007, 18:39	i suppose you are going to blame this on masons and "proddies" now.

Author: dinamo_fan_4_ever
Date: 27-04-2007, 19:26

both posts from badgerboy and aliceag make sense. what i would like to add is that noone guarantiees that in the uefa cup a team like celtic can concentrate and reach the quartes by example. once in the uefa cup i think they would be more focused on wining the title in scotland.

+ they can get a really bad group and shedule + they can end 2nd and meat a team from UCL or even a team like osasuna that can surprise them.

Author: rooster
Date: 28-04-2007, 21:04

very slim chance that celtic could get pot2 need 7 above them not to qualify - juve newcastle villareal wont qualify bayern look unlikely to qualify valencia may get pipped. it is a long shot that feyonoord/gronigen/herenveen win the dutch CL play off and hence knock out 2 of ajax/psv/az. an unlikely scenario but still possible. celtic did get hosed by the way - with champagne when the players celebrated in the dressing room when winning the league!!

Re: celtic got hosed?
Author: Overgame Date: 28-04-2007, 21:15	Don't forget a possible surprise in the CL qR3 (Ajax in 2006, Monaco in 2005, etc).

Author: cookiemonster
Date: 29-04-2007, 21:18

To clear things up on Celtic's seeding next year:

There are currently 22 teams ranked higher than them. These include Juventus, Villarreal, Newcastle and AZ Alkmaar who can't qualify for the CL next year. Bayern also look unlikley to take part, as they are currently 4th in the Bundesliga 7pts off 3rd with only 3 games to play. That makes celtic the 17th best ranked team in next years competition. Additionally in Spain real Zaragoza could easily finish in the top 4 meaning celtic would move up to 16th and Pot 2.

On top of this between 5 and 7 (depending on results) of these teams will need to enter the 3rd qualifying round. Just 1 result like Ajax getting knocked out this year would mean Celtic go into pot 2.

So I don't think you need to worry too much about the Uefa cup causing you problems.

Also considering Celtic coefficient is only as high as it is due to their own Uefa cup run in 2002/3, its a bit hypocritical to complain about Benfica who last year reached the CL QF - losing to eventual winners Barcelona!

Re: celtic got hosed?
Author: bert.kassies Date: 29-04-2007, 21:44	What makes you think that AZ can't qualify for the CL next year?

Re: celtic got hosed?
Author: Overgame Date: 29-04-2007, 22:35	Well, bert is right, but if AZ is qualified, Ajax isn't and vice versa.

Re: celtic got hosed?
Author: cookiemonster Date: 03-05-2007, 18:51	Based on the access list on the website the dutch are in 7th place for next season so only get 2 places or is that for the following year? AZ finished 3rd so would be in the UEFA cup?

Re: celtic got hosed?
Author: Floridian Date: 03-05-2007, 19:32	In Holland teams in 2nd through 5th position in the league table are going to playoff (2-5, 3-4 -> final) for the 2nd CL spot (1st is going to champions right away). So AZ still can win this playoff and get to CL. Three teams are going to UEFA cup.

Re: celtic got hosed?
Author: moro Date: 03-05-2007, 20:28	I think RODA Kerkrade is already in Uefa Cup, isnt'it?

Re: celtic got hosed?
Author: Ricardo Date: 04-05-2007, 09:47	moro, no, place 6-9 also have a play off for the last Uefa ticket. So Roda, Feyenoord, Groningen and Utrecht will compete for that last ticket. Sorry for the complex Dutch system, it's not like everybody likes it.

Author: Hamburger
Date: 04-05-2007, 09:49

Read what you have just written.
I can only assume you are a Rangers fan trying to wind up.

"Celtic will not get a Pot B bid, because they got passed by 3 teams who accumulated points in the UEFA cup"

The only reason Celtic will have any chance of Pot 2 is ................yes..........wait for it.............all the points they gained in their run to the Final of the UEFA Cup.

We are rolling round on the floor laughing

Re: celtic got hosed?
Author: moro Date: 04-05-2007, 10:49	From outside, I'm not sure I dislike the play-off system in Holland. Because it produces more spectacular games between good teams, and after all, that's why we're watching football, to support teams and, if possible, see some spectacle.

Re: celtic got hosed?
Author: richboy Date: 05-05-2007, 15:31	moro, is there anything you,re happy about in football?

Re: celtic got hosed?
Author: cookiemonster Date: 09-05-2007, 20:01	Thats a strange way to decide CL spot...5th placed team can get in at the expense of the runners up..crazy! As Overgame says it doesn't change my calculations because if AZ get in Ajax wont. In fact it could make it easier for Celtic, as if FC Twente or Heerenveen qualify, Celtic will almost certainly be in the 2nd pot.

Re: celtic got hosed?
Author: blackbull Date: 10-05-2007, 16:58	Don't you think you should wait and see if celtic qualify for the group stages before assuming which pot they will be in? Especially given their qualifying record thus far.

Author: badgerboy
Date: 10-05-2007, 17:23

"As Overgame says it doesn't change my calculations because if AZ get in Ajax wont. In fact it could make it easier for Celtic, as if FC Twente or Heerenveen qualify, Celtic will almost certainly be in the 2nd pot".

Actually I don't see Celtic in the second pot unless there is a surprise in QR3. They would need Heerenveen or Twente to win the Dutch play-offs AND Zaragoza to pip Valencia for 4th in Spain to make it otherwise.

If this doesn't happen they will be looking for one of: Milan or Liverpool, Arsenal, Valencia, Sevilla (or Barca/Madrid if they have to qualify), Benfica (if they finish 3rd in Portugal rather than 2nd) or Bremen (again if they finish 3rd rather than 1st or 2nd) to get turned over.

Any of these teams getting turned over in QR3 would be a pretty big surprise. Maybe Benfica if they draw someone like AEK or Fenerbahce? Otherwise...

Re: celtic got hosed?
Author: cookiemonster Date: 10-05-2007, 17:39	Badgerboy I agree (read my post on 29/4) they will need someone to get knocked out just as they did this year.

Re: celtic got hosed?
Author: badgerboy Date: 10-05-2007, 18:31	Cookiemonster Where I think I disagree is that Celtic need two things to go their way - or two teams to get knocked out in QR3 - if things are going to go their way. One wont be enough.