This forum is read-only now. Please use Forum 2 for new posts
| xml | No replies possible in the archive |
| CL with 64 teams in 2016/2017 | |
| Author: rmsg
Date: 07-04-2012, 15:09 Edited by: rmsg at: 07-04-2012, 15:13 | It?s a Platini's proposal for 2016/2017 season - Germany, Italy, Spain and England with six teams and Europa League ends - information from newspaper Bild. |
| Re: CL with 64 teams in 2016/2017 | |
| Author: Lorric
Date: 07-04-2012, 15:16 Edited by: Lorric at: 07-04-2012, 15:17 | Hope not. That would be another less English team in Europe. From 8 to 7 to 6. On the other hand, if domestic cups still get places, I don't think we'll be seeing teams not take them seriously anymore. Italy would benefit hugely, a rejuvenated Coppa Italia, No more whining about the Europa League, and the same teams as the best when frankly I don't think they deserve it. But at least there'd be no looking down on the Europa League anymore. Could be fun to be had thinking what format we'd use for a 64 team CL. It might be for the greater good the more I think of it even if there is one less English team, though I hope we'd abolish the league cup European place under these circumstances. |
| Re: CL with 64 teams in 2016/2017 | |
| Author: biagio
Date: 07-04-2012, 15:18 | here is the article from bild translated in english : no more europa league |
| Re: CL with 64 teams in 2016/2017 | |
| Author: Lorric
Date: 07-04-2012, 15:26 | I've read that and two other articles, and they all say only the top 3 get 6 spots. I don't like KO at 32. But there wouldn't be a way around that I don't think, and qualifiers to 32 would be brutal. however, the more I think of it the more I am excited by it. The wealth will be spread even further throughout the clubs with this. I wonder if there will be fair play places? An incentive to clean up the game? |
| Re: CL with 64 teams in 2016/2017 | |
| Author: rmsg
Date: 07-04-2012, 15:39 | The qualifying stage will be huge: 53 countries, 250/300 teams for 32/48 spots (32 or 16 enter group stage directly). |
| Re: CL with 64 teams in 2016/2017 | |
| Author: Lorric
Date: 07-04-2012, 15:43 Edited by: Lorric at: 07-04-2012, 15:44 | I don't think there'll be a 5th qualifying round. I expect it will be 4 qualifying rounds. I think someone would need to do some tinkering with ideas. I am guessing that every nation is going to lose a European place. So most nations will have 3. Work with that benchmark. |
| Re: CL with 64 teams in 2016/2017 | |
| Author: Lorric
Date: 07-04-2012, 16:29 Edited by: Lorric at: 07-04-2012, 16:31 | I wonder if the Cup Winner spot will be regarded as no.2 seed? A lot of top countries would suddenly see their domestic cup offer a Champions League group stage place to the winner. That would certainly stop domestic cups being looked down on, although a Champions League qualification of any description would surely have quite the effect. They should rebrand the competition as the European Cup. Or maybe even European Super Cup, since that trophy will be obsolete along with the Europa League trophy. Here's how I see the distribution of group places after some early thought: Title Holder - 1 1-3 - 4 4-6 - 3 7-9 - 2 10-12 - 1 Champions Path - 10 League Path - 21 |
| Re: CL with 64 teams in 2016/2017 | |
| Author: rmsg
Date: 07-04-2012, 16:37 | An academic exercise: rank 1-4: 6 teams (4 directly to GS) rank 5-7: 5 teams (2 GS) rank 8-10: 4 teams (2 GS) rank 11-20: 4 teams (1 GS) rank 21-53: 3 teams Number of teams: 190 (46 directly to GS) QR1: 144 -> 72 QR2: 72 -> 36 QR3: 36 -> 18 to GS |
| Re: CL with 64 teams in 2016/2017 | |
| Author: Lorric
Date: 07-04-2012, 17:09 | Now let's imagine this competition was in place this year. I will create a group stage with the auto group qualifiers and top seeds under the format qualifying. I will assume Cup Winner is 2nd seed. Title holder spot not needed, so goes to 13th Champion. Please note, I haven’t checked to see if cup runner ups lost to the league champion. QL - Qualified League Path QC - Qualified Champions Path Pot A Barcelona (1,TH) 141.456 Manchester United (1) 151.157 Chelsea (2) 129.157 Bayern Munich (QL) 118.887 Arsenal (4) 108.157 Real Madrid (2) 103.465 FC Porto (1) 100.319 Internazionale (2) 100.110 AC Milan (1) 94.110 Sevilla (QL) 93.456 Olympique Lyon (3) 92.735 Shakhtar Donetsk (1) 87.776 Valencia (3) 85.465 AS Roma (QL) 85.110 Benfica (2) (81.319) Tottenham Hotspur (QL) 78.157 Pot B Villarreal (3) 75.456 PSV Eindhoven (QL) 74.025 CSKA Moscow (2) 73.941 Atletico Madrid (QL) 70.456 Olympique Marseille (2) 68.735 Sporting CP (QL) 68.319 Sporting Braga (QL) 62.319 Schalke 04 (CW) 61.887 Dynamo Kiev (2) 60.776 Zenit Saint Petersburg (1) 60.441 Panathinaikos (QL) 57.833 Glasgow Rangers (QC) 56.028 Ajax (1) 56.025 Bayer Leverkusen (2) 54.887 Spartak Moscow (QL) 51.941 Paris Saint-Germain (QL) 51.735 Pot C FC Copenhagen (QC) 51.110 Olympiakos (1) 50.833 Manchester City (3) 47.157 AZ Alkmaar (QL) 43.025 Anderlecht (QL) 42.400 FC Twente (QL) 41.025 Lille OSC (1) 40.735 Fulham (QL) 40.157 FC Basel (1) 39.980 Celtic (QL) 39.528 Besiktas (QL) 37.010 Hapoel Tel Aviv (QL) 36.400 Metalist Kharkhiv (QL) 34.276 Standard Liege (QL) 32.400 Rubin Kazan (3) 31.941 Club Brugge (QL) 31.400 Pot D AEK Athens (QL) 30.833 Sparta Prague (QL) 30.170 Steaua Bucharest (CW) 29.164 Udinese (4) 27.110 BATE Borisov (QC) 23.216 Borussia Dortmund (1) 22.887 Maccabi Haifa (QC) 21.400 Napoli (3) 21.110 Dinamo Zagreb (QC) 20.224 Rosenborg BK (QC) 19.375 Partizan Belgrade (QC) 15.850 APOEL Nicosia (QC) 13.124 Trabzonspor (1) 12.010 Wisla Krakow (QC) 10.183 Sturm Graz (QC) 8.640 Otelul Galati (1) 5.164 |
| Re: CL with 64 teams in 2016/2017 | |
| Author: Lorric
Date: 07-04-2012, 17:10 | @ rmsg The 1-4 getting 6 places is an error. Also, they I'm sure would still enact the Champions Path split. I am going to attempt a mock draw for my new Champions League. Please stand by... |
| Re: CL with 64 teams in 2016/2017 | |
| Author: rmsg
Date: 07-04-2012, 17:21 Edited by: rmsg at: 07-04-2012, 17:25 | @ Lorric Platini said that England, Spain, Italy and Germany must have six teams in CL at least. |
| Re: CL with 64 teams in 2016/2017 | |
| Author: Lorric
Date: 07-04-2012, 17:33 | It doesn't say that even in the translated article. Anyway, my draw is ready... Group A - FC Porto, Atletico Madrid, Metalist Kharkhiv, Rosenborg BK Group B - Bayern Munich, CSKA Moscow, AZ Alkmaar, AEK Athens Group C - Chelsea, Dynamo Kiev, Besiktas, APOEL Nicosia Group D - Arsenal, Schalke 04, FC Twente, Steaua Bucharest Group E - Sevilla, Paris Saint-Germain, FC Copenhagen, Dortmund Group F - Inter, Zenit Saint Petersburg, Celtic, Sparta Prague Group G - Barcelona, PSV Eindhoven, Standard Liege, Otelul Galati Group H - Benfica, Panathinaikos, Lille OSC, Napoli Group I - Tottenham, Sporting CP, Anderlecht, Wisla Krakow Group J - Shakhtar Donetsk, Marseille, Olympiakos, BATE Borisov Group K - Manchester United, Spartak Moscow, Club Brugge, Sturm Graz Group L - Valencia, Ajax, Manchester City, Partizan Belgrade Group M - Real Madrid, Sporting Braga, FC Basel, Maccabi Haifa Group N - Lyon, Villarreal, Hapoel Tel Aviv, Udinese Group O - AC Milan, Bayer Leverkusen, Fulham, Dinamo Zagreb Group P - AS Roma, Rangers, Rubin Kazan, Trabzonspor Boo hoo hoo, Barcelona and Man U, easy draws, UEFA is corrupt, wah wah wah… |
| Re: CL with 64 teams in 2016/2017 | |
| Author: Lorric
Date: 07-04-2012, 17:51 | Okay, my turn… TH - 1GS 1-3 - 6 (4GS) 4-6 - 5 (3GS) 7-9 - 5 (2GS) 10-12 - 4 (1GS) 13-50 - 3 51-52 - 2 Liechtenstein - 1 on the League Path. We’ll assume the TH place will not be used, as it is even less likely of that now. So that is 31 places up for grabs in qualifying. 39 Champions will take 10 places. It would be much as it is now, with no playoff round. Though I wouldn’t be surprised if they restructured it, with perhaps the top 5 nations coming in at the last round or something, and a larger minnow round to begin with. This would leave 21 places up for grabs, with 107 teams wanting them. That is easy to handle in 4 qualifying rounds. Not sure how you’d distribute the places but it is very workable. |
| Re: CL with 64 teams in 2016/2017 | |
| Author: nemesys
Date: 07-04-2012, 19:54 Edited by: nemesys at: 07-04-2012, 19:57 | !Arrogant Personal opinion. And just for academical purposes.  I'm quite surprised to be honest. And I actually like it. The EL abort is putted into archives. KO rounds in CL start from 32 clubs left, instead of 16. They will keep the weird KO QR/PO >> GS >> KO final phase, but this is in the end acceptable. Only with Uefa deciding to abolish QR and start with 128 or 256 or 196 (best 64 getting a bye) clubs and KO rounds since autumn, giving me back the old "Champions Cup" format, it could be better if you ask me. But money matters, so this won't happen, and I guess this is the best deal I could get from Uefa for my personal format preferences (I rank the two legs H2H as the best ever possible football cup format). Well, just my two distracted cents. Cheers! - nemesys EDIT: ah... I almost forgot to mention: My most Sincere Happy Easter to Bert and all the members of this Forum! |
| Re: CL with 64 teams in 2016/2017 | |
| Author: Forza-AZ
Date: 08-04-2012, 12:09 | This idea is very bad for a number of reasons: 1.less EC-spots for all countries, so clubs just below the top in each country will almost never get to play in Europe any more, so leagues get more boring in mid-table at the end of the season. 2.only 64 teams still play in EC in September, while there are 80 now, so more teams already finish their season in July-August when the Domestic season still only just has started 3.group stage gets less interesting since the level difference gets much higher between the teams from Pots 1/2 and 3/4. So much more games that will have high scores or have B-string teams. I don't know why they want to ablolish EL. I personally find the EL much more interesting then the CL since the results are much harder to predict and you see different teams get far every year, while in CL the same teams get far year after year. So the way it is now is much better then the Platini proposal. You have the CL that is interesting for the top teams, and the EL that is interesting for the "2nd/3rd-level" teams in Europe. |
| Re: CL with 64 teams in 2016/2017 | |
| Author: nemesys
Date: 08-04-2012, 16:00 | Personal analysis on the abolition of the EL subject: Take the two Manchester sides: missed to qualify for CL 1/8 final. Maybe a bit or arrogance underestimating their GS opponents, maybe a bit of bad luck in key games, maybe also focusing the Premiership Title in their head. However, they missed that task, and were "relegated" to EL. And once in EL, in a key phase of the domestic championship, with both clubs really close to the lead there, they both focus on that I believe to save their season, and both weren't able to qualify not even a single round in EL. I'm not saying that they did in purpose, they just didn't focus enough to get results maybe. Hence I say EL lacks prestige and appeal. Really, I believe that even Chelsea or Arsenal, far from the Premiership title in this season, would have about the same fate in EL; because even a next season CL qualification (rank 3rd or 4th in Premiership) likely has for them more value than an EL title. Take Valencia now. They are domestically in a good position, in race for the next CL qualification, and they are also still in race for the EL title, and already in semifinal. My guess is that if in the same week they will have to play a key match to qualify for CL and an EL semifinal, consciously or not, the one their heads will really focus on it is the first: do the best to make sure to be part of the next CL. I even suspect they would prefer a 3rd place in La Liga (CL GS) over a 4th place (CL PO) plus an EL title. Take Sporting. Nothing to fight for domestically: disappointing season, title hopes gone early, CL qualification gone kind of early too with the extremely positive Braga season. Result: good EL season. I believe they will give everything in the next EL matches, and I have the same opinion for the next Athletic Bilbao matches in EL. About Atletico Madrid IMHO it will depend on how much they will be close to the 4th place in La Liga, how much possible is for them be part of the next CL. And I'm not even mentioning Serie A sides huge gap in performances between CL and EL... Those are the limits of this EL format if you ask me. For several major clubs a CL qualification saves the season more than an EL title. Hence the winner is too often and too likely the club (or one of the clubs) which could spend the most resources in there, rather than the best one (or one of the best ones). From a fan point of view this could also maybe be positive somehow: you see different good clubs (as Fulham last season or Athletic Bilbao), from different countries (as Ukraine, Turkey, Russia), getting far and/or winning; but I doubt Uefa, commercially/market wise, really likes this scenario of an unappealing "last thing to care about" optional competition for so many of the major clubs involved. So I understand this change. And since what I like the most, the final phase Ko rounds, will start one turn earlier (with 32 clubs left instead of 16) in CL in this last proposed scenario, I personally kind of welcome this new possible format. All this even if I don't personally really dislike or hate the EL itself, I just see it not working the way I suppose Uefa wishes it to commercially work (to be honest, I even predicted its fate since its introduction, in my previous posts in here). Just my two cents personal analysis. (I can likely be wrong, of course). - nemesys |
| Re: CL with 64 teams in 2016/2017 | |
| Author: Forza-AZ
Date: 08-04-2012, 16:55 | A solution might be to give a CL-GS slot to the winner of the EL. And maybe even another CL-QR slot to the runner-up. That way the current format can stay and clubs from big countries involved will take it more serious as they can qualify for the CL. That way it won't hurt the clubs that already take the EL serious, which will have much less European games when the EL is abolished. |
| Re: CL with 64 teams in 2016/2017 | |
| Author: Overgame
Date: 08-04-2012, 18:50 | Let's play this game too ! Let's assume that the TH is already qualified. Tis isn't my wish, but how I think UEFA will make it. 1-4 : 7 (4+3) 5-8 : 6 (3+3) 9-10 : 5 (2+3) 11-16 : 5 (1+4) 17-32 : 4 (0+4) 33-53 : 3 (0+3) (Liechtenstein 1) 217 teams. 38 teams directly qualified. 177 teams playing for 26 spots. Q4 : 52 teams (20+32 from previous round) Q3 : 64 teams (23+40 from previous round) Q2 : 80 teams (26+54 from previous round) Q1 : 108 teams 1-4 : 4GS 1Q4 1Q3 1Q2 0Q1 5-8 : 3GS 1Q4 1Q3 1Q2 0Q1 9-12 : 2GS 1Q4 1Q3 1Q2 0Q1 13-16 : 1GS 1Q4 1Q3 1Q2 1Q1 17-20 : 0GS 1Q4 1Q3 1Q2 1Q1 21-23 : 0GS 0Q4 1Q3 1Q2 2Q1 24-26 : 0GS 0Q4 0Q3 1Q2 3Q1 27-53 : all Q1 If someone wants to check if I made a mistake, he cann, I'm too tired to check myself :p |
| Re: CL with 64 teams in 2016/2017 | |
| Author: Ricardo
Date: 09-04-2012, 10:31 | I think it's a very bad idea of Platini. An idea made by someone of the top leagues. For Holland it's a serious tournament, the EL, except for Englishes coaches like McClaren, we know we won't have any chance in CL. Top leagues want more teams in CL. For me it will be less interesting i now think of 'not another Barca-Chelsea'. With more top league teams, there will be more dominance of the top leagues. Maybe after winter break there will be only top-4 left with an exceptional top-10 team. I'm not interested in more ' domestical' matches under European flag. First KO round of CL is one of the least interesting round. And this will mean we get more of these. I don't like all the spanish teams we have now. And we will only get more of this. I really do hope this idea will not be implemented. |
| Re: CL with 64 teams in 2016/2017 | |
| Author: Todor
Date: 09-04-2012, 11:12 Edited by: Todor at: 09-04-2012, 14:07 | I think exactly the same as Ricardo. Of all the countries, only England, France and Italy seem not to regard EL as a serious competion. The rest are taking it pretty seriosly, so i can see why UEFA would want to scrap it, and if they do, then for much more FA's than now, the European season would be over in September or December respectively. |
| Re: CL with 64 teams in 2016/2017 | |
| Author: nemesys
Date: 09-04-2012, 18:02 | @Ricardo, Todor I understand your point of view, but I disagree. Since we are not wizards, we don't know what it would be like, however, flipping the coin, I'd like to point out few positive things (I think) about fairness and equity, with this new proposed scenario: 1. All Uefa competitions participants would get the same good CL money for their results, which could end up in reducing a bit somehow the financial power gap between leagues and clubs; I'm not saying that it is going to be equal distribution of course, but, to make an extreme example, a money power ratio of 2:100 (from CL) still better than 1:100 (from EL) I guess. 2. Doubling the number of groups in the GS phase, the best clubs will be diluted: if in this CL Fenerbache, Shakhtar, Apoel, Kobenhavn, Basel, two Russian (and only two English!) sides in the same season, and so on, have a chance to qualify for the spring phase, I don't see why they would have none doubling up the spring spots from 16 to 32. 3. I strongly disagree on the fact that the first Ko round in CL is the most boring phase of the tournament: to me it is the opposite! March to May it is when Uefa football gets more popular and this is because of KOs if you ask me. In March you start to see CL matches that really matters, see clubs giving all in the pitch, discover surprises keeping up (as Apoel this season), and get to really know them and what their football is about, what their players skills are, how much their coaches ideas are good enough for CL. No, a GS match it is not the same: not the same pathos, not the same fascination, not the same epic, not the same interest. This new format offering an extra KO round in spring is offering something valuable if you ask me, and 32 clubs means potentially way more countries represented in the top competition, and better chances to have the big surprise of the season into the main competition. 4. People forgets. But Greece won an Euro, Danmark won an Euro, Steaua reached a CL final. A Porto - Monaco final was not so far ago, Deportivo, Valencia and Villareal did better than Real in many quite recent seasons, Apoel surprised us eliminated Lyon, who eliminated Real few times, who eliminated Apoel. European football is made of many culturally good football countries. Giving to the less rich countries and clubs the opportunity in CL, _sport wise_, IMO still better than relegate them to EL just because, at the end of the story, they just got less money. In this new scenario they will potentially win less maybe, but market wise they will likely be a bit stronger, and the "sport epic" for them from their good results will be more: as for Apoel this season for example, eliminating Porto, Shakhtar, Lyon, even Zenit somehow, then being able to score twice in Santiago Bernabeu, ... this makes European football history more than an extra round qualification in EL, if you ask me. Bottom line: I personally wouldn't be so pessimistic. I personally believe we potentially will see more different countries and clubs being protagonists in CL with this new proposed scenario. Well, it will also depend on the access list of course, so let's see what Uefa projects are about this other aspect of this "revolution". Just my two cents thoughts. And as always, I could be wrong of course. Cheers! - nemesys |
| Re: CL with 64 teams in 2016/2017 | |
| Author: Overgame
Date: 09-04-2012, 21:01 | I don't like the idea, but I can't against. Nemesys sais what I was thinking, and I wonder why the big clubs would like this CLn unless there are some changes on where the money goes. And football wise, actually the CL is kind of "locked" : let's check how many teams outside the top 5 countries do we get in the last 16 : 2011/2012 : 5 (1 from Portugal) 2010/2011 : 2 (0 from portugal) 2009/2010 : 3 (1 from Portugal) 2008/2009 : 3 (2 from Portugal) 2007/2008 : 4 (1 from Portugal) If we accept Portugal in the equation, the top 6 countries took 68 out of 80 spots : 85%. Even if we're up to what I posted (7 teams for tp 4, 6 for 5-8, etc), we would more likely see more teams from Holland, Russia, etc passing the GS. And there, with a (semi-)open draw, we have more chances to see teams outside the top 5 passing more rounds than now. Actually, the example of Apoel is wonderful : it might happens more often in the future, with a 64 teams CL : group without 2 bigs giants, decent draw in the next round, etc. That's why I cannot be against, even if I like having more than one single cup. |
| Re: CL with 64 teams in 2016/2017 | |
| Author: Ricardo
Date: 10-04-2012, 01:24 | 1. I dont care too much about money. Besides that can be just allocated differently. iso 800 Mln to CL and 8 to EL, it can be 500 to CL and 300 to EL. 2. OK doubling in spring. let's say 32. I'd expect 25-30 EACH year from top-5 countries. Including Portugal there will be 3-5 'other' teams. Where Holland now had 3 teams in February. All 3 had a certain believe in winning the Cup. Of course unrealistic if you really start to think about it, considering their budget. Not about getting 1 round further, no, thinking they can really win the Cup. in EL I believe a Dutch club can win. In CL there are too many with a larger budget. And with enough focus on the cup to want to win it(what made AZ win from Udinese). With the new FFP coming on, CL money can not be regarded as structural income. Dutch budget will not rise that much. With top-teams being not interested in EL 2 things can be done: - more money to EL, to make it wortwhile! - abolish CL dropout to EL. Especialy the CL teams are not interested, so why give them this opportunity they dont want (well teams like Ajax and Twente like it, but not the top5-countries). |
| Re: CL with 64 teams in 2016/2017 | |
| Author: Friesland
Date: 10-04-2012, 01:27 Edited by: Friesland at: 10-04-2012, 01:31 | nemesys wrote:1. All Uefa competitions participants would get the same good CL Yes, the CL money thing is the REAL problem. E.g. Partizan earned more money for finishing fourth in the CLGS with 0 points than FC Porto earned for winning the Europa League. It's logical that an average CL team earns more, or even far more than an average EL team, but the best EL team earning less than the worst CL team is just crazy. The problem is that UEFA is using two different money pots for the two competitions. In my opinion UEFA should make it one big money pot, but not just one competition. There is not a format problem, there is a problem with how the money is distributed. UEFA should fix what is wrong, not what is right. I will repeat: Partizan (0 points CLGS) earned MORE money than Porto (EL winner). Even Besiktas (2nd in Porto's group, eliminated in ELR32) earned more money than Porto, by the way. Source: http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/EuroExperience/uefaorg/Finance/01/ 77/26/16/1772616_DOWNLOAD.pdf nemesys wrote: 2. Doubling the number of groups in the GS phase, the best clubs You have to look at the whole picture. The total number of "spring spots" will be reduced from 48 to 32. The total number of Group stage spots will be reduced from 80 to 64. Furthermore, we'll see less surprises in the group stage. Manchester United dropping out in the group stage? Can't really see that happening in a 64 team CL. nemesys wrote: 3. I strongly disagree on the fact that the first Ko round in That is silly, we can use the same argument for the EL knock-out phase. It doesn't have to be reinvented and used for the CL. Furthermore you forget to point out that actual reaching the CL knock-out phase will less of an achievement, than like it is now. It doesn't add anything, it only takes away what already exists. nemesys wrote: 4. People forgets. But Greece won an Euro, Danmark won an Euro, So, we should expand EURO to 64 teams? It just proves the opposite: expansions are not necessary to have a number of surprises now and then. I imagined a 64-team CL some time ago, those spot should go to the 52 domestic champions, the CL and EL winner and the 10 best runners up. What do you get? Many teams that are not good enough and a very unexcited competition. It makes clear that there ought to be some division, which means the EL is eminent. With a 64-team CL you have many teams that simply don't belong in CL. Fourth, fifth, sixth ranked teams of the top leagues? Do not belong in CL, they simply don't deserve to be in CL. Weak champions that can't even reach CLQ4 or, worse, CLQ3? Do not belong in CL, they're simply proven to be too weak. Yes, they certainly deserve a chance on the European stage and that's why we have the "second tier" Europa League. So, I'd say: hands off! It's just like the domestic leagues, I don't know how many clubs there are, probably thousands, but you can't have all of them in the top tier, can you? Qualifying for CL ought to be a "big achievement" (even though some teams qualify almost every year) By expanding CL to 64, it becomes less of an achievement to qualify for CL, because there will be even more teams qualifying EVERY year. It is not just wrong, it is dead wrong. I think the current format is good enough, although I prefer the number of teams (in CL) per nation to be limited to 3, instead of 4. However, I'm persistent in the opinion, that a 24 team CL (with at most 2 teams per nations) and a 64 team EL is the best format. This leaves some top teams relegated to the EL, which will make that competition more exciting. And also with only 24 teams in CL, it's feel more of a privilege to be in the competition, and they have 5 guaranteed matches instead of just 3. The key to reduce the number of dead matches, is by giving a bye to the second placed team and two byes to the group winners and home field advantage in a single knock out match for the higher ranked team in the group stage. I'd also like the idea to not only have the final but also the two semi finals on neutral ground. You see, there are more solutions than just haphazardly eliminating the Europa League and expanding the CL to 64. That is just what this move would be: haphazard. The only thing they have to do is get the money distribution in order. That might also make those "unmotivated" teams feel better about this competition. |
| Re: CL with 64 teams in 2016/2017 | |
| Author: Lorric
Date: 10-04-2012, 02:12 Edited by: Lorric at: 10-04-2012, 02:13 | The competition will be stronger than either the old CL or EL. Reaching a 64 team GS will be less of an achievement than the old 32 team GS, but I think reaching the last 32 will be more of an achievement, along with each subsequent round. The last 16 would be open. You could get stuff like Barcelona vs Manchester United and Bayern vs Real Madrid in the last 16. |
| Re: CL with 64 teams in 2016/2017 | |
| Author: Lorric
Date: 10-04-2012, 02:50 Edited by: Lorric at: 10-04-2012, 02:52 | On the idea that English clubs don't take the Europa League seriously, I'm afraid I can't agree, as much as I'd like to. Tottenham are the only team that didn't take it seriously, but they did want the group stage for their young players, and fielded the first team in the qualifier against Hearts to get it. They did take the competition seriously with the way their teams conducted themselves on the field, but not with the players they selected. I think they saw it as valuable for their young players, but obviously a low priority. If Tottenham don't finish in the top 4 this season, it will remind me of Aston Villa, when they threw away the Europa League and had a huge lead over 5th like Tottenham, and threw it away. And like Tottenham, lost it to a huge Arsenal comeback. Fulham, despite having to start at Q1, fielded their strongest team throughout, passed all 4 qualifiers, and should have got out of the group stage too, but they got screwed. Birmingham really surprised me by going for it, and they not only got to the group stage, but were in contention to get out of it all the way. But at the end of the day, they're a tier 2 team, and weren't strong enough. Stoke were the only team to get through. Like the others, they tried, though they, like most EPL teams, fielded a weak team in their final match with qualification secured, and it cost them the top spot, and lead to an exit at the hands of Valencia, which is a mismatch. Manchester United had injury problems in the Europa League, but the way Bilbao played, I think they could have defeated the full Manchester United side. Manchester United fielded the best they had available, even in the 2nd leg. Manchester City absolutely destroyed Porto in the last 32. I thought that was City's first impressive European performance since the cash came in, and a real statement of intent. The exit to Sporting I believe was a symptom of the malaise which has come over the club, they are dropping points all over the place, and have pretty much gifted the title to Man U. They fielded their first team against Sporting, but played poorly. They really tried to rescue it from 3-0 down, but were killed off by the away goals in a 3-3 aggregate. Generally you get England's mid-level teams that are far off the big teams in the EL, though that may change with the big 4 a thing of the past. But when it was the big 4, they generally just weren't strong enough to make the latter stages of this competition, coming against the cream of Europe's 2nd and 3rd tier leagues, rivals from their equivalent positions in the top leagues, and Champions League group stage dropouts. With the exception of Fulham's final appearance. |
| Re: CL with 64 teams in 2016/2017 | |
| Author: nemesys
Date: 10-04-2012, 03:38 | ^^___ That is silly, we can use the same argument for the EL knock-out phase. You misunderstood me, but that's my bad. I should specify I was answering Ricardo about the first Ko round being the most boring phase of the CL, point of view which I respect but strongly disagree with. About the rest of your post, I thank you for the time you spent, I read everything with interest, you have solid points, it makes perfect sense. If Uefa would do those changes you propose. Would Uefa? Now, Uefa doesn't pay me, neither Platini. I like the CL the way it is now, but still, I don't dislike this new proposal, as I was happy when UEFA decided to abolish the second GS in CL. Do you remember? Top clubs, G14, asked for that 8 groups, then 4 groups, then Ko since 1/4 final format, and they battled with Uefa for not losing those extra 6 GS CL matches, getting instead 2 more CL KO matches (total matches dropped then from 17 to 13 in the whole season for the finalists). I don't think introducing this new format is top clubs friendly over the format we have now. It adds 2 matches, but they are "unsafe" Ko matches, so it doesn't make things any easier for the strongest as more GS phase matches would do. And by the way, as Ricardo already pointed out, it doesn't even offer to Top 5 countries an EL free qualification parachute after losing in PO QR rounds or finishing 3rd in CL GS. Cups IMO should be about facing an opponent and qualifying to the next round, this is the positive I see in this new format: it doesn't make the CL a competition where giant clubs meet (to make money filling the stadium and with TVs) in an "useless" GS match, just to meet again later in a KO "real" match; it doesn't increase the number of "sure to happen" way more "money friendly" than KOs GS matches; it doesn't change further the historical nature of the competition, actually it gets a bit back to what it was before changing its name. And this is why I'm surprised: I thought Uefa could not impose again a lower GS(matches):KO(matches) ratio to top clubs, instead with this format it actually managed to do it: for the finalist before it was 12:5=2.40; today is 6:7=0.86; in the new format it will be 6:9=0.67. Again, your points are valid, I just don't think it is likely that what you wish would happen, so I don't see this proposal worst than what we have. But as already said, I can be wrong. Thanks again for spending your time sharing your points of views. --- @Ricardo Well, I not too convinced about your "every season 25/30 clubs from top 5 + some from Portugal likely scenario". This means that every season, Udinese, Toulouse, NewCastle, Braga, Levante, Hoffenheim, will always, without error, sequentially eliminate Ajax, Twente, Zenit, Cska, Shakhtar, Dinamo Kyiv, Olympiakos, Panathinaikos, Galatasaray, Fenerbache, Basel, Celtic, Anderlecht, Apoel, Sparta Praha, Kobenhavn, and so on... this after what we have seen this season? Even Genk (not the best Belgian club I believe), in a group with #1(2) Chelsea; #2(3) Valencia; #3(2) Leverkusen; managed to play a role in that group. note: # = Uefa ranking (in brackets the position in the domestic league the previous season, IIRC). I believe that even reaching 20 of 32 "spring" spot will be pretty hard for Top _6_ countries (unless the access lists will be really unfair); by the way, if the Overgame example was true, a low ranked club like Udinese or Toulouse would have hard time even to reach the GS phase, facing in QRs the best 7-16 countries seeded clubs, or even other top 6 clubs seeded with better Uefa ranking, as showed this season with Udinese losing to Arsenal. As Overgame said, I agree on the fact that the % of non top 5/6 clubs in "spring" CL will increase; numerically speaking (I mean total number of clubs involved in Uefa competitions), considering the lost EL chances, maybe not, this is true. But again, the countries which will lose the most representatives will be to Top 5/6, which will still in theory have like 6 maximum clubs in spring, but will more hardly qualify all of them, for the reasons showed above. Again, unless the access list will surprise us with some unexpected favor to the top leagues. Then the fact could prove me wrong, so I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Again, we are not wizard, so IMO we just don't know, but I like to share my opinion about this subject, and even if I disagree a bit with your conclusions, I read them with interest and I'm glad you spent your time to explain them. Cheers! - nemesys |
| Re: CL with 64 teams in 2016/2017 | |
| Author: nemesys
Date: 10-04-2012, 03:42 | @Lorric You are from England, so you likely know better than I do. I just wonder what if Manchester sides had only the EL to fight for... But I rest my case on this matter. Cheers. - nemesys |
| Re: CL with 64 teams in 2016/2017 | |
| Author: Ricardo
Date: 10-04-2012, 15:14 | I made a list of teams that probably would have qualified from Lorric groups (post 7 april). The top 2 will qualify from each group, right? I have taken this year surprises in account(like APOEL, Basel,...) Then we will have: England : 5 teams Spain: 6 teams Germany: 3 teams Italy: 5 teams France: 2 teams Portugal: 3 teams Russia: 4 teams Holland: 1 team Greece: 1 team Switzerland: 1 team Cyprus: 1 team I might have been too pessimistic with 3-5 non-top-6 teams, but if I look at this I get very scared. Where is Ukraine, Turkey, Belgium..... This is the round 0f 32. How will the round of 16 look like. How much luck in the draw do you need for a non-top-6 team to pass round of 32, let alone the round of 16?? I don't see it happening. |
| Re: CL with 64 teams in 2016/2017 | |
| Author: Lorric
Date: 10-04-2012, 16:16 | @ Ricardo You're a pessimistic one. And remember I went with all the top coefficients here too. I'll have more on that later, but would it really raise eyebrows much to get something like this, and this is without any outlandish surprises. With 16 groups, you'd surely see some big ones. Many thought Manchester United's group the most predictable this season, after all. A: Atletico Madrid, Metalist B: Bayern Munich, CSKA Moscow C: Chelsea, Besiktas D: Arsenal, FC Twente E: Paris St. Germain, Dortmund F: Zenit, Inter G: Barcelona, Standard Liege H: Napoli, Benfica I: Tottenham, Anderlecht J: Shakhtar Donetsk, Marseille K: Manchester United, Spartak Moscow L: Valencia, Manchester City M: Real Madrid, Braga N: Udinese, Lyon O: AC Milan, Bayer Leverkusen P: Trabzonspor, Rubin Kazan And that's just one draw, the possibilities are limitless. I'm going to do another, with the help of the results of this years competitions to change up the teams involved, stay tuned... Meanwhile, let's see what we've got here... England: 5 Spain: 4 Germany: 3 Italy: 4 France: 3 Portugal: 2 Russia: 4 Ukraine: 2 Netherlands: 1 Turkey: 2 Belgium: 2 |
| Re: CL with 64 teams in 2016/2017 | |
| Author: Lorric
Date: 10-04-2012, 16:52 Edited by: Lorric at: 10-04-2012, 17:22 | Right, let’s do this again. QL - Qualified League Path QC - Qualified Champions Path Teams that have been replaced: Rangers by Malmo Rosenborg by Plzen Partizan by Genk Panathinaikos by Odense Sevilla by Hannover 96 Sparta Prague by Vaslui Spartak Moscow by Legia Warsaw Paris St. Germain by Red Bull Salzburg AEK Athens by Lokomotiv Moscow So with these 9 changes, 1 pot A team, 4 pot B teams and 4 Pot D teams have been removed. New teams are shown with an (N) and gains for teams from the last draw are shown also: Pot A Barcelona (1,TH) 141.456 Manchester United (1) 151.157 Chelsea (2) 129.157 Bayern Munich (QL) 118.887 Arsenal (4) 108.157 Real Madrid (2) 103.465 FC Porto (1) 100.319 Internazionale (2) 100.110 AC Milan (1) 94.110 Olympique Lyon (3) 92.735 Shakhtar Donetsk (1) 87.776 Valencia (3) 85.465 AS Roma (QL) 85.110 Benfica (2) (81.319) Tottenham Hotspur (QL) 78.157 Villarreal (3) 75.456 (+1) Pot B PSV Eindhoven (QL) 74.025 CSKA Moscow (2) 73.941 Atletico Madrid (QL) 70.456 Olympique Marseille (2) 68.735 Sporting CP (QL) 68.319 Sporting Braga (QL) 62.319 Schalke 04 (CW) 61.887 Dynamo Kiev (2) 60.776 Zenit Saint Petersburg (1) 60.441 Ajax (1) 56.025 Bayer Leverkusen (2) 54.887 FC Copenhagen (QC) 51.110 (+1) Olympiakos (1) 50.833 (+1) Manchester City (3) 47.157 (+1) AZ Alkmaar (QL) 43.025 (+1) Anderlecht (QL) 42.400 (+1) Pot C FC Twente (QL) 41.025 Lille OSC (1) 40.735 Fulham (QL) 40.157 FC Basel (1) 39.980 Celtic (QL) 39.528 Besiktas (QL) 37.010 Hapoel Tel Aviv (QL) 36.400 Metalist Kharkhiv (QL) 34.276 Standard Liege (QL) 32.400 Rubin Kazan (3) 31.941 Club Brugge (QL) 31.400 Steaua Bucharest (CW) 29.164 (+1) Udinese (4) 27.110 (+1) BATE Borisov (QC) 23.216 (+1) Borussia Dortmund (1) 22.887 (+1) Red Bull Salzburg (QL) 22.140 (N) Pot D Maccabi Haifa (QC) 21.400 Napoli (3) 21.110 Dinamo Zagreb (QC) 20.224 Odense (QL) 18.610 Lokomotiv Moscow (QL) 18.441 Hannver 96 (QL) 13.887 (N) APOEL Nicosia (QC) 13.124 Trabzonspor (1) 12.010 Wisla Krakow (QC) 10.183 FC Vaslui (QL) 10.164 (N) Sturm Graz (QC) 8.640 Genk (QC) 8.400 (N) Legia Warsaw (QL) 5.183 (N) Viktoria Plzen (QC) 5.170 (N) Otelul Galati (1) 5.164 Malmo (QC) 2.825 (N) Draw: Group A - Chelsea, Olympiakos, FC Twente, Hannover 96 Group B - Shakhtar Donetsk, Sporting CP, Club Brugge, Sturm Graz Group C - Arsenal, PSV Eindhoven, Dortmund, Genk Group D - Inter, Dynamo Kiev, Steaua Bucharest, Trabzonspor Group E - Barcelona, Bayer Leverkusen, Lille, FC Vaslui Group F - AC Milan, Atletico Madrid, BATE Borisov, Dinamo Zagreb Group G - Tottenham, Schalke, Standard Liege, Odense Group H - Benfica, AZ Alkmaar, Metalist Kharkhiv, Maccabi Haifa Group I - Valencia, Sporting Braga, FC Basel, APOEL Nicosia Group J - Lyon, Manchester City, Hapoel Tel Aviv, Otelul Galati Group K - Bayern Munich, CSKA Moscow, Fulham, Malmo Group L - Villarreal, Ajax, Udinese, Wisla Krakow Group M - Porto, Anderlecht, Celtic, Viktoria Plzen Group N - Real Madrid, Copenhagen, Besiktas, Lokomotiv Moscow Group O - Manchester United, Zenit, Red Bull Salzburg, Napoli Group P - Roma, Marseille, Rubin Kazan, Legia Warsaw |
| Re: CL with 64 teams in 2016/2017 | |
| Author: Lorric
Date: 10-04-2012, 17:40 Edited by: Lorric at: 10-04-2012, 17:40 | Now then, would this set of teams going into the quarters look unrealistic? I haven't gone rigid favourites, but I haven't done any huge surprises either: A: Chelsea, Olympiakos B: Shakhtar Donetsk, Sporting CP C: Arsenal, PSV Eindhoven D: Inter, Steaua Bucharest E: Barcelona, Lille F: Atletico Madrid, AC Milan G: Schalke, Tottenham H: Benfica, AZ Alkmaar I: Valencia, Braga J: Manchester City, Lyon K: Bayern Munich, CSKA Moscow L: Ajax, Udinese M: Porto, Anderlecht N: Real Madrid, Besiktas O: Manchester United, Napoli P: Rubin Kazan, Roma Now, let's shake things up a bit more... A: Chelsea, Twente B: Club Brugge, Shakhtar Donetsk C: Dortmund, Arsenal D: Trabzonspor, Inter E: Barcelona, Lille F: Atletico Madrid, AC Milan G: Tottenham, Standard Liege H: Metalist Kharkhiv, Benfica I: Basel, Valencia J: Lyon, Manchester City K: Bayern Munich, Fulham L: Ajax, Villarreal M: Celtic, Porto N: Real Madrid, Copenhagen O: Zenit, Napoli P: Marseille, Legia Warsaw |
| Re: CL with 64 teams in 2016/2017 | |
| Author: tallaght
Date: 10-04-2012, 19:02 | I don't think everyone will be thrown in to the same qualifying phase. I think they will definitely divide a Champions and non Champions route. They might also throw in an intertoto sort of competition aswell with 1 or 2 making it in through that way. As for a non-champions route, you are hardly going to match teams with a 40.000 coefficient with a 3.000 coefficient, it's crazy and although some teams may get lucky with their draw it doesn't allow the champions league to have the best teams involved every year.. Stick to 2 competitions uefa.. |
| Re: CL with 64 teams in 2016/2017 | |
| Author: Ricardo
Date: 10-04-2012, 21:10 Edited by: Ricardo at: 10-04-2012, 21:30 | @lorric, yes if you mix the teams like this you put all string teams together and the weak teams together. Of course it can happen, but I think you're going too far I your arranged draw. I did include the surprises of this year already, including the bad ones of Lyon for instance. I think it's more realistic, than your last draw. About your pick of that first draw: Metalist over Porto? Besiktas over APOEL ? Neither one is a top country, because of this year I took APOEL Twente over Schalke? There was a H2H this year Dortmund over Sevilla? Both top-3teams Standard over PSV? That's personal! Anderlecht over Sporting? Who was in the semis this year? Shakthar over Olympiakos? Both non top-5. due to this year results Braga over Basel? General yes. But looking at this year and counting on surprises to happen I took Basel. Trabzonspor over Roma? Yes, that was the surprise I did not put into my prediction, maybe because lateron Trabzonspor disappointed. I'm willing to accept this change. It doesn't change a lot though. Still very scary! |
| Re: CL with 64 teams in 2016/2017 | |
| Author: Lorric
Date: 10-04-2012, 21:32 Edited by: Lorric at: 10-04-2012, 21:37 | Both draws were random. Unless you're talking about my picks to advance. Remember Basel got to the last 16 and APOEL got to the last 8 this year, we're just speculating on who'll get to a last 32. EDIT: Oh wait, you're talking about my first draw. Hang on... |
| Re: CL with 64 teams in 2016/2017 | |
| Author: Lorric
Date: 10-04-2012, 21:47 Edited by: Lorric at: 10-04-2012, 22:06 | Metalist over Porto? Why not, Porto were dire this year. Besiktas did do pretty well in the Europa League. And I didn't want to choose APOEL again anyway, because you did. That's one of my little shake ups. Would it be that much of a surprise really? If Hannover can beat Sevilla, so can Dortmund. Why is Standard over PSV personal? I thought you were Portuguese. Sporting are not that strong in their recent Portuguese league form the last years. Anderlecht going over them wouldn't be a shock I don't think. Sporting are clearly a European raise your game kind of team though. I'd say Ukrainian Champion > Greek Champion. Braga are nearly equal to Benfica. They couldn't beat Benfica. Trabzonspor beat Inter in Italy, so I thought that would be good for an upset. Weird stat for you: Trabzonspor only lost one CL game. All three other teams in their group lost 2. |
| Re: CL with 64 teams in 2016/2017 | |
| Author: Friesland
Date: 10-04-2012, 22:14 Edited by: Friesland at: 10-04-2012, 22:16 | If you think about how a round of 32 would like in the CL with 64 teams, you can think of the teams that qualified for the round of 16 in CL and the round of 16 in EL in the past 13 seasons and compare it to the teams in the CLGS.theoretical CL r32 | CLGS (32 teams) | top-6 = ESP, ENG, ITA, I think the numbers are self-explanatory. There would be 20-26 teams from the top-6 in the last 32, while we only have 18-21* in the CLGS. Only 9-15 countries will be represented in the round of 32, while we have 14*-18 countries represented in the current CLGS. On average the change would add 4.3 top-6 teams to the last 32 teams in CL compared to the 32 team group stage, while there will be 4.4 countries less represented in the CL round of 32, then we have in the CL group stage. And if it's true that some top-6 teams take the EL less serious, the difference would be even bigger. The 1999-00 season shows the biggest difference between CLGS and the "theoretical" CL round of 32 of a CLGS with 64 teams. * Note: because of the "champion path" at least 17 (and at most 20, 21 is also possible, but very rarely) countries will be represented in the CLGS. The top-6 will have at least 15 teams in the group stage, and with the "non-champions path" in place, the top-6 can have at most 20 teams, expect for a very rare scenario in which the maximal 21 is still possible. |
| Re: CL with 64 teams in 2016/2017 | |
| Author: nemesys
Date: 11-04-2012, 01:01 | ^^____ Average 23.5 and 12 countries represented. And this is in spring! Not in the beginning of the season. Taking out the CL GS 3rds (often clubs from top countries) qualifying for EL spring phase, the ratio might be even better for lower countries clubs. However, without an access list telling us how many clubs from each country will be there in the beginning of the QRs, it is pretty hard to predict anything valuable. I think the access list influences the output of the competition past GS. If Top 6 countries clubs ranked 4th, 5th, 6th domestically must face QRs as Overgame proposes above, while the champions up to countries 16-20 get a GS direct qualification, the ratio in spring could likely be more favorable to lower countries clubs compared to the sum (CL+EL spring football) of what we have today. However, this is not really about hating Top 6 countries clubs, right? We are talking about a fair competition, or at least comparing the two formats to judge if the new proposed one is more top countries friendly than the one we have now. IMO it is not. I can be wrong. And I will be wrong if the access lists will be unbalanced since the beginning of the tournament. But if it will be balanced, I think this is a lower countries friendly revolution, allowing clubs from those countries to play and be protagonist in the important trophy, and sharing the same important money pot. And by the way, as Overgame noticed already, it will potentially make the "locked" CL a bit more open. Just my opinion here, of course. Except for the 6 clubs for top countries, there is any other Uefa communication on the possible access list of this new format? Cheers. - nemesys |
| Re: CL with 64 teams in 2016/2017 | |
| Author: executor
Date: 11-04-2012, 08:14 | Lorric: Why is Standard over PSV personal? I thought you were Portuguese. Good one, Lorric!  That's one for the records!Yes, he's Portuguese and he's favourite team is ...... Sporting CP!  He just loves how they win in injury time, especially vs. Dutch teams PS: I suggest you visit Forum 2 once in a while, this way you'll get to know people better  |
| Re: CL with 64 teams in 2016/2017 | |
| Author: Ricardo
Date: 11-04-2012, 11:56 | as executor probably already made clear. I'm Dutch, my favorit team is PSV. That's why its personal Talking about a fair competition. It's how clubs and their supporters view the tournament. I guess from lower than top 15 you only think of getting as far in teh competition as possible. Being top 6 it's a failure if you don't make it to spring. For the teams in between reaching spring is a target, some might see it as a failure not reaching it, some won't. But they also can dream of reaching the final, teams like PSV, Shakthar, Olympiakos, Galatasaray, maybe Anderelcht too after their great GS-performance. The EL final that is. In CL all wil know they never pass more than 1 big club. Beating ManCity? OK, but then there is still Milan or Barca or Bayern next. Target will have to shift again from 'maybe we'll lift the cup' to 'maybe we pass the first 2 KO rounds'. |
| Re: CL with 64 teams in 2016/2017 | |
| Author: Friesland
Date: 11-04-2012, 14:00 | Quote: nemesys: Taking out the CL GS 3rds (often clubs from top countries) qualifying for EL spring phase, the ratio might be even better for lower countries clubs. --- End quote No, they will simply go to the knock-out of CL, so taking them out wouldn't make any sense. Quote: nemesys: However, without an access list telling us how many clubs from each country will be there in the beginning of the QRs, it is pretty hard to predict anything valuable. --- End quote We don't know, that's true. What we do know is that 64 is a smaller number than 80 and 32 is a smaller number than 48, and that can't means any good. Also because of abolishing EL, the teams eliminated in the CL qualifiers have nowhere to go to. I think that is enough to know. And no, I don't think the change is good for top-6, in fact I think this change would be horrible for everyone, as I mentioned before. Quote: nemesys: Except for the 6 clubs for top countries, there is any other Uefa communication on the possible access list of this new format? --- End quote UEFA make format change every three year. So a format change would start in 2015 and then in 2018 there can be new changes again. Based on previous decisions, a decision will likely by made in November or December of 2013. So, there is still enough time for UEFA to reject this most errant idea and come up with more sensible ideas. E.g. like reducing CL to 24 and making EL more interesting by putting more money more big teams (3rd and 4rds of top-6) in that competition. It would make the EL be more lucrative, more appealing and it would give it more prestige. |
| Re: CL with 64 teams in 2016/2017 | |
| Author: Forza-AZ
Date: 11-04-2012, 16:34 | @Friesland. CL will never be decreased again to 24 teams. Once a tournament it increased in size it will not be decreased again, since that will make it commercial less valuable. |
| Re: CL with 64 teams in 2016/2017 | |
| Author: kurt
Date: 11-04-2012, 17:39 Edited by: kurt at: 11-04-2012, 17:41 | The european competitions changed a lot the last decades. But i find the concept now the best so far. It is impossible to be ok for every country and club. You have a platform for the topteams and also the little countries can believe in europe league. If you set europaleague in the fridge and only one cup then that is only good for the topcountries. The current situation is not super but the best for a lot of countries. I hope everything would stay like now, with little changes. 1) europe league winner gets champions league ticket 2) more money in europe league and less in champions league, i am not talking about big chances, 10 percent less in champions league and that money for europa league would be great. |
| Re: CL with 64 teams in 2016/2017 | |
| Author: Friesland
Date: 11-04-2012, 18:49 | @Forza-AZ: Why would it be less valuable? With less clubs, the clubs that do participate will get more attention. Also in my format of a CL with 24 teams, the tournament, will actually increase. Instead of 125 matches, there will be 135 matches, because there will be groups of 6 instead of 4. And with single match play-offs, the knock-out phase will become more spectacular. Now, it is true that increasing the number of participants to certain tournaments is more popular than decreasing the number of participants. Though, it's not like it never happens. We actually see it happen from time to time in domestic football. So, apparently sometimes a decrease is judged to be more valuable. And they even did it twice with the CL. There was the introduction of the 16 team group stage came with a clear decrease in the number of participants, either 32 to 16 (for the proper tournament), or 42 to 24 (if the qualifiers are included), while the elimination of the second group stage was a decrease in the number of matches (157 to 125). The bottom line: never say never.  @ kurt: yes, it doesn't have to be much, if you take away 10% from CL and add it to EL, its already a 50% increase. If you take the CL money list and compare it to Porto, they would be 32nd with the current distribution, with only Zilina with less money. When you take 10% away from CL and add it to EL, Porto would you to 29. So, it seems it's more like 15-20% of CL money that have to be shifted to EL. A shift of 15% means Porto would jump to 22nd place and with 20% they jump to 19th place. |
| Re: CL with 64 teams in 2016/2017 | |
| Author: nemesys
Date: 12-04-2012, 01:54 | @Friesland And no, I don't think the change is good for top-6, in fact I think this change would be horrible for everyone, as I mentioned before. I see your point. I understood your reasons. We don't share the same opinion and conclusions, but however, I admit your analysis is logic and coherent, so even if I still not convinced on the fact that this introduction would be forcefully a bad idea, I respect your point of views, and recognize you could be correct more than I am. I just speak from what I see, what I think, what my experience says, and what conclusions my logic brings me to. I'm not the biggest fan of the EL format, but overall I sincerely don't dislike at all the Uefa competitions format we have today, they still are the football competitions I follow the most, and the time I'm spending on this forum I believe is enough a proof. They are probably not perfect, and some of your points of view on how they could be more balanced are also mines. Neither I dislike the new proposed format, for the various reasons I explained in my previous posts (mostly the KOs from R32 in CL). And also for the fact I hope it could likely balance the access list, being a bit more generous (number of possible spots in the main competition wise) with the middle-high ranked countries (say countries ranked 7th to 25th). IMO this format change it is not forcefully "wrong", mostly it is just different. If different for the better or not, I don't know, but I guess it could be better if implemented the correct way, especially access list wise. In few words, I'm sincerely fine with both solution. I respect the different opinions you are explaining, but I personally don't share your same pessimism about this proposal. Cheers! - nemesys |
| Re: CL with 64 teams in 2016/2017 | |
| Author: putje
Date: 13-04-2012, 09:54 | Funny how we jump to conclusions without knowing anything. When I read the article I see 3 things. - No more EL - A ChL with 64 teams. - "keineswegs 6" teams for top countries (Absolutely NO 6 teams). The way I see it, this could just as good mean a champions league with the 54 champions + TH + the 9 GS non Champions teams we now have. That way there wouldn't be any QR and only these 64 teams in European footbal. I don't think this will happen, but it is closer to the article than many of the other ideas I red in this threat. As long there is no entry list, we do know nothing. Except the figures: * less teams in groups + less teams in spring. * A group of 4 teams with only 2 spots to fight for will give more dead games than a group where also the 3th spot is of (little) intrest. * When the difference in quality of the teams in one group becomes bigger, the less surprises you will get. Conclusion: I don't think this new formula will be better than the one we know now. |
| Re: CL with 64 teams in 2016/2017 | |
| Author: Ricardo
Date: 13-04-2012, 12:45 | Thanks putje for this remark. It made me search for the original and it indeed says that there will be in no way 6 spots, it also contains some not very nice remarks about Platini that were left out. Therefor here te original story from Bild and my translation added. Its not perfect (neither language is my mothertongue) but I gues its understadable: Unter den acht Halbfinalisten in Champions League und Europa League ist mit Bayern ein Klub aus Deutschland, einer aus England, einer aus Portugal und sage und schreibe fünf (!) kommen aus Spanien. Die spanische Übermacht im europäischen Fußball wird langsam beängstigend. Among the eight semi-finalists of the Champions League and Europa League are with Bayern one team from germany, one from England, one from Portugal and five(!) teams from Spain. The spanish domination in european football is slowly getting scary. Das ist aber nicht der Grund, warum Uefa-Präsident Michel Platini an einer grundsätzlichen Reform des Europacups arbeitet und auf dem gesamten Kontinent zurzeit nach Unterstützern sucht. Der Franzose will die Europa League komplett abschaffen – und dafür die Champions League gigantisch aufblasen. Von derzeit 32 auf dann 64 Vereine (ab 2016). That however is not the reason why Uefa-president Michel Platini is working on a fundamental reform of the Europacups and is currently looking on the complete continent for support. The Frenchmanwant to abolish the Europa leguae completely - and for that to enlarge the Champions league enormously. From currently 32 till then (2016) 64 teams. Bei den Großen wie Barcelona, Real oder Bayern wird Platini allerdings auf wenig Gegenliebe stoßen. Denn sein Plan könnte auch die Überschrift tragen: Mehr Masse statt Klasse! With the big teams like Barcelona, Real or Bayern Platini will meet little support. Because his plan can bear the title: More mass in stead of class Spanier, Engländer oder Deutsche hätten dann nämlich keineswegs sechs statt wie zurzeit vier Startplätze. Vor allem den Kleineren, z. B. aus Lettland, Weißrussland oder der Slowakei, soll die Tür zur Königsklasse aufgestoßen werden. Die hochklassige Champions League würde auf diese Weise in unverantwortlicher Weise verwässert werden. The Spanish, English or Germans will in now way have six in stead of the current 4 starting-allocations. Especially for the little ones, e.g. from Latvia, Belarus, or Slovakia will the door to the royal class have to be set wide open. Like this the high-class Champions league will be watered down(/weakened) in an irresponsible way. Platini verweist bei seiner sogenannten Reform zwar auf die unbefriedigenden Vermarktungs-Möglichkeiten der unattraktiven Euro-League (sowohl bei Sponsoren als auch bei den Fernseh-Geldern) – in Wirklichkeit aber geht es dem Uefa-Boss auch (oder vor allem) um Machterhalt. Platini refers with his so-called reform heavily on the unsatisfactory marketing-possibilities the unattractive Europa League (aswell with the Sponsors as well with the TV-right) - In real however it is the Uefa-boss also (or most of all) about to remain in power. Platini gilt als großer Freund der kleinen Verbände. Als er 2007 die Wahl gegen seinen Amtsvorgänger Johannsson (Schweden) gewann, waren es vor allem die Wahlmänner aus dem Osten Europas, die ihn auf den Thron brachten. Der damalige DFB-Präsident Theo Zwanziger schimpfte anschließend: „Die Kleinen haben gesiegt. Wenn man sieht, wer da hochgesprungen ist: Das waren alles Nationen mit nicht mehr als 100 Einwohnern...“ Platini is regarded as big friend of the small associations. When he won the elections in 2007 againt his predecessor Johansson, it were mainly the electors from eastern-europe who brought him on the throne. The DFB-president at that time, Theo Zwanziger, scolded at that moment: "The littel ones have won. When you see who jumped up: that all were nations with not over 100 inhabitants..." Setzt sich Platini jetzt auch noch mit seiner Europacup-Reform durch, hat er vielleicht seinen weiteren Karriere-Weg geebnet. Doch wenn Bayern in einer Champions-League-Gruppe z.B. gegen Sestaponi (Meister Georgien) oder Skenderbeu Korce (Tabellenführer Albanien) spielen sollte, dann hat er dem Fußball einen Bärendienst erwiesen. Will Platini push his Europacup-reform through, he probably will have paved his future Carreer-way. But when Bayern in a Champions League group will have to play vs. e.g. Sestaphoni(champion of Georgia) or Skenderbeu Korce (current leading in Albania), then he will have done a bad service for football. |
| Re: CL with 64 teams in 2016/2017 | |
| Author: nemesys
Date: 13-04-2012, 16:12 | (kidding mode) Funny how we jump to conclusions without knowing anything. (...) Conclusion: I don't think this new formula will be better than the one we know now. Yep, funny.  (//kidding mode) @Ricardo Thanks for translating it.  Cheers. - nemesys |
| Re: CL with 64 teams in 2016/2017 | |
| Author: Lorric
Date: 13-04-2012, 16:53 | @ executor Throw it in with my England thread. |