Forum

xml	No replies possible in the archive

Author: mxcolin
Date: 03-10-2007, 13:03

The new access list scheme not only doesn't restrict the number of big money leagues to less places it lets the 3rd place team in automatically without the need to ever qualify. Proof if ever it were needed that UEFA and European Football is run by England, Spain, Italy, France and Germany. The rich get even richer. What's the point. Why has Platini been allowed to lie to get in and then not delivered on his promise. In 10 years I can see access being restricted to nations that don't have more than 40 million TV viewers. Why don't we just award the Champion's League to whoever has the biggest bank balance. The sport is being destroyed by this.

Author: cska
Date: 03-10-2007, 13:31

Actually, why not?
Why don't we really have a rich Euroleague, where the likes of Chelsea, Man Utd, barca, real, Milan, Bayern, etc. can compete, while the rest can have CL and UC (or maybe one single tournament) with unrestricted possibility to qualify and without seeded teams in GS.
Actually, now the top 2 teams in top 3 leagues proved they deserve a seeded spot in GS, but Lazio and Roma this year, just like teams like Hamburger or Osasuna previously don't seem unbeatable for me. What about a climber in the rankings like Zurich, Salzburg or Rosenborg? They may be unseeded, but having a weaker seeded team (like Levski/Tampere) they can qualify. And what about Lazio and Dinamo Bucharest? Dinamo could have qualified. Lazio did not seem unbeatable.
Badgerboy already insisted that "such 3rd placed teams could meat an unseeded team and "eat" its spot in GS". But now under the current proposal of Platini those 3rd placed teams "eat" the spots of unseeded teams even without any games between them.

Author: badgerboy
Date: 03-10-2007, 17:41

mxcolin

I'm really not sure why you needed to start a new topic for this with a "headline grabbing" title.

It's already being much discussed elsewhere.

You seem to be concentrating on the negatives - from the "small country" perspective and completely ignoring the positive side - which is that there will be 18 different domestic Champions playing the group stages. There hasn't been that many since 1999-2000.

A more positive outlook on Platini's proposals can be found here . The author talks so much sense I could easily have written the piece myself

Author: Tintin
Date: 03-10-2007, 21:14
Edited by: Tintin
at: 03-10-2007, 23:10

I can agree with Mxcolin .
In the new set-up the 3 highest ranked
countries has one directly CL-GS-spot more
than now!!! I'de found it allways better to
give nobody more than 2 CL-spots, but 3 is possible
too when one of them will be the cupwinner, so for the
cupfighters the domestic cups can be more honnord than now!!
But when the nrs-4 to -6 ,must give one CL-spot up too than
it can be more complicated than it's now!!

I find it better to give the 3 highest
ranked countries each one CL-GS-spot les
and the counties ranked 17 to 28 each
one more and in CL-Q2. Those 12 countries
must give-up each one UC-spot, so theire
cupwinners play CL instead UC.

The 3 highest ranked countries wil have
each 2 members in the intertoto and
the resting 50 counties each one and the
members of the 16 lowest-ranked countries
must play a premerly-round. So the resting
48 ITC-members play 4 rounds play-offs
for 3 spots in the UC-GS.

It 's a serieus possible too to let
be placed the 24 loosers of CL-Q1 be placed
for ITC-R2 too so they'll play one round
more in the ITC.
Or to let play the 24 loosers of the CL-Q1 with
the 37 loosers of UC-Q2 and the 3 best loosers off
the ITC-semiefinals in a new EC-III-tournement
(totally 64) six rounds play-offs.
So the same number of teams can reach
the CL-GS and UC-GS like Platini
has planned it!!

Author: Cirdan
Date: 03-10-2007, 21:42
Edited by: Cirdan
at: 03-10-2007, 21:43

@Tintin: Badgerboy is pro Platini. Read his post again.

I think it's weird for the really small nations to complain about Platinis plans. The qualification will be way easier for them, since there won't be an Arsenal, Liverpool, Valencia, Werder Bremen waiting in QR3 that will make it close to impossible to qualify, the best teams will be Levski, Anderlecht and the likes. I mean, ask Dinamo Zagreb or ask Sparta Praha if they'd rather have one spot less for the top 3, but playing in the same qualification with the top nations teams, or the Platini proposal... I'm pretty sure they'd vote for Platini.

If anyone can complain, it's the middle-tier nations, like Ukraine, Turkey or Scotland, they all have 2 teams in this years CL, in the future that will be more than unlikely. But it will be also a bit harder for the better nations like Portugal, Germany and even the top 3 to get ther 2nd, 3rd or 4th team through the qualification.

Author: mxcolin
Date: 04-10-2007, 11:43

You are missing the point. By continually allowing 4 teams in from leagues that already have far too much money you just make it even harder for the lower leagues. The competiton is massively top weighted for money reasons and it is crushing the spirit of the game. The fact is Platini lied. He said there would be less teams in from the big money leagues, but once he is in he goes back on it because he knows the entire game is based around getting more and more money into Italy, Spain and England. The stench of corruption is everywhere.

Author: badgerboy
Date: 04-10-2007, 12:11

Platini's main promise was to get "more Champions in the Champions League" and this he is having a pretty good stab at delivering.

About as good a stab as possible in the "real world" as opposed to some internet fantasy land that a lot of us (and yes I include myself in this sometimes) inhabit.

Yes - there's too much money in football. But that's reality. We all have to live with it.

To suggest that Platini is "corrupt" because he's having to live in the real world is absolutely ridiculous.

Author: Tintin
Date: 04-10-2007, 17:00

Platini promised more champions in CL and voila, at can't be
more than 18 of the 32. It was better only champions and runners-up,
so not more than 2 from each country. But cupwinners in it can give
the CL an extra demension, than it wil be more attractive for cupfighters!!

But no there will be a to big gabe between winners and loosers
of UC-Q2 , the winners are sure about 8 matches and loosers only to.
It wil be better to let play the loosers of CL-Q1,UC-Q2 and maybe
UC-Q1 and ITC a new EC-III tournement with only KO-rounds.
When only loosers of CL-Q1+UC-Q2 play in it they'll play 6 rounds,
by loosers from UC-Q1 seven and 8 by loosers from intertoto.

Author: Cirdan
Date: 04-10-2007, 17:13
Edited by: Cirdan
at: 04-10-2007, 17:21

And cska is also right - the CL needs the big teams as much as the big teams needs the cl. It's as successfull as it is because the people want to see Ronaldinho, Messi, Sneijder and Kaka, they want to see Barca and Real, ManU and Chelsea. Giving one less club from the big leagues entry won't destroy the CL, as long as there are still enough top clubs participating, but it might make the G14 think harder about their own closed League.

Of course the situation now is not really great, you are right in that the big leagues and clubs are getting most of the money, and it's nearly impossible for smaller leagues to close the gap, but if you don't give them so much money, there is the realistic possibility that they won't participate at all, and that will prove to be a disaster for the UEFA club competitions.

Plus, really closing the gap is already nearly impossible because of the difference in the leagues - the premier league gets loads of money from both the domestic market and international markets, because it is thought to be the best league, thus they get the most money, thus they can buy the best players, thus they will remain strong. It is already very hard for the Bundesliga to compete with that - despite them having higher stadium attendances and a rich domestic market - for Ukraine or Russia, let alone even smaller nations it's even harder. You can't change that via European Clubs anyway.