|
This forum is read-only now. Please use Forum 2 for new posts
xml |
No replies possible in the archive |
Author: NunoSLB
Date: 31-08-2012, 11:55
| This may seem like a radical position, but I think clubs should be able to buy/sell european competition berths from one another. It would prevent smaller clubs who just ruin a country's coefficient (look at the netherlands who are already down to 3 out of 7 clubs still in competition) from disgracing themselves, and give them a financial boom, with which they would make themselves stronger are readier for european competition in years to come.
This would give more power to finantially stable clubs, but there should always be a cap as to how many clubs you can have in the same season in European Competition (7 would do fine).
You can argue that it would make football's quality take a backseat to finantial power... Also things should be so that any club that buys a berth, has to start competing in the very early stages of competition, even if the club you bought the bert from had GS access.
I can see these berths being worth alot. A season's budget worth in some cases... I know most of you are gonna hate the idea, just remember to keep it civile.
Cheers |
Author: bert.kassies
Date: 31-08-2012, 12:11
| Disagree. The major advantage of a good country ranking is that more teams can play European football. In general, those extra teams will lower the country ranking by definition. So the system is well balanced. |
Author: NunoSLB
Date: 31-08-2012, 12:51
| I think the major advantage of a good ranking is that your teams start competing in the most advanced stages, and don't have to go throught the ordeal of traveling form Portugal to Georgia or Israel in the pre-season when the coach is still trying out new options, ruining the physical preparation and spending money on travel expenses that UEFA doesn't cover (Paços de Ferreira once spent a year's worth of expenses on a trips there).
Teams who start competing in the group stages also have a guarenteed finantial boon and more games to play and get european experience out of, not to mention the possibility of higher level play. |
Author: bert.kassies
Date: 31-08-2012, 13:01
| UEFA does cover travel expenses for 90 k€ per qualifying away game. |
Author: NunoSLB
Date: 31-08-2012, 13:04
Edited by: NunoSLB at: 31-08-2012, 13:09 | That must have been changed in the years since then. The Paços thing was back in 2009 (?) or there about... I remember they complained to high heaven about it.
Edit: Still, my other arguments are valid no? Teams who start competition early often have trouble mid season with injuries and exaustion, especially in EURO/WC years.
Edit2: It got to be so bad they haven't signed up for UEFA competitions since. |
Author: bert.kassies
Date: 31-08-2012, 13:21
| Lol nuno, didn't know it was so bad.
I know that clubs complain a lot for an early start but to my opinion that is usually highly exaggerated. If you are really a big team you can easily beat some minnows in a qualifying match (even with partly a B team) and you can easily fit that into a pre-season calendar. If it is not so easy, well then maybe that is the correct starting round |
Author: NunoSLB
Date: 31-08-2012, 13:36
| That may be the case, but if you get eliminated by a B team, then whats the point? Shouldn't you be able to sell that berth to someone else who will probably put up a better fight? It would make the games more interesting.
Besides, at that low level, squad depth is pretty low. Which makes it harder for clubs who often depend on one or two players to rotate, and demands more (physically) from them. |
Author: rpo.castro
Date: 31-08-2012, 16:31
| Stupid idea. If this was applied, the rich teams would have more money despite their bad performance on the field. Look for the teams that were eliminated by weaker teams. Is AZ Alkmaar (former Ducth champion and semi-finalist of uefa cup) a bad team? Or CSKA Moscow?
Playing even only 2 games is an Honour for the smaller teams and they fight on the field for it. And if don't want to go, they can refuse (or not apllying for a spot).
Money isn't everything. |
Author: UploaderAfonso
Date: 31-08-2012, 19:30
| Wasn't AZ who lost 5-0 in home in EL QR4? |
Author: psychoTurk
Date: 31-08-2012, 19:34
| no more modern football may the god damn the money,i hate money football is not business,football is fever |
Author: Forza-AZ
Date: 31-08-2012, 20:00
| @UploaderAfonso
Unfortunately we did.
But that doesn't meen AZ is to weak for EL. We just drew the strongest unseeded team in QR4 (in years maybe even), and the 0-5 loss wasn't according to play in the match. Anzhi was much better but the 0-5 was to much.
But about the topic of this thread. It's just a ridiculous suggestion. Football is a sport and teams should qualify for CL and EL because what they show on the pitch, and not the money they have.
Some teams might not have something to add to EL, but if they sell their spots always, they will never get the experience to play better in later years. For small teams playing EL every now and then is also a highlight in their history. No way they want to trade that for some money. |
Author: Lorric
Date: 31-08-2012, 21:15
Edited by: Lorric at: 31-08-2012, 21:15 | I don't know how anyone who loves the sport could suggest such a thing. Perhaps you don't? |
Author: UploaderAfonso
Date: 31-08-2012, 23:56
| @ psychoTurk
It's very annoying the fact that they allways buy our best players...
@ Forza-AZ
Some months ago, I didn't even heard about that team! |
Author: Forza-AZ
Date: 01-09-2012, 11:40
| Anzhi did not play European football before (except 1 game versus Rangers long ago). But since a few years they have a very rich owner that bought a lot of good players. And Hiddink apparently also was able to make a very good team of Anzhi. Their defence is extremely good (no goals against in 6 matches in ELQ), while they have some very good strikers to score goals from dangerous counter attacks.
So they are indeed a new team in Europe, but that doesn't mean that are no good. In the group with Liverpool, Udinese and Young Boys I think they have a very good chance to progress. |
Author: UploaderAfonso
Date: 01-09-2012, 15:57
| I knew that... |
Author: NunoSLB
Date: 02-09-2012, 14:37
Edited by: NunoSLB at: 02-09-2012, 14:52 | These things already happen in other places... NBA teams sell draft spots to one another. Idon't think it has anything to do with love for the sport. If things went unchanged, the CL would still be an invitation only competition. That kind of mentality is what keeps goal line tech and other enhancements away from football. People just say leave it as it is... It is the same for time-wasting techniques. If the clock was stoped when the game stoped, all the time-wasting would end. But nothing's better than the status quo right?
As for the importance of money, I've heard that being talked about quite a bit, being from Portugal where austerity measures are constantly discussed. And let me tell you, money is almost everything. Or would you prefer it if your team went to UEFA competitions in the midst of a financial turmoil, got eliminated early on, then went bankrupt and extinct?
PS: see Rangers Football Club's last season. And it's not that I believe Rangers to be a poor team or anything. I don't even think they'd sell their berth due to fan outcry. But it would probably be the smartest thing to do.
@Forza AZ If they wouldn't sell their spots, its their prerogative. No one will force them into it. They'd just have the option, and if they felt it better to do so then good on them. |
Author: NunoSLB
Date: 02-09-2012, 14:42
| As for the Anzhi-AZ example, I don't think its a fair one. It's the exception, not the rule. |
Author: Lorric
Date: 02-09-2012, 17:33
Edited by: Lorric at: 02-09-2012, 17:33 | You can't compare draft picks to this. That's more akin to dealings in the transfer market.
This goes against everything integral to sporting competition. |
Author: rpo.castro
Date: 02-09-2012, 23:41
| @NunoSLB If money is almost everything, why did teams play? Why don't just draw, and the bigger budget moves next round? Or if they could sell their spots, they could sell also the game result. That would be perfect. An ode to modern football
PS: Rangers is just bad management, nothing to do with Uefa participations. |
Author: Ricardo
Date: 03-09-2012, 17:22
| Well, wth the EL it could be interesting. I mean, there are a lot of clubs of the top countries that don't want to play EL, so they could sell it to the teams that do want to play, So we could see Swansea play in Europe. Some people go far to obtain a European ticket. Looka t Heerenveen last year. They lost a match on purpose - and see where it got them now . NO, selling spots is not the way. What could be tried is that teams will not apply for a European license. Teams can do that and the spot is moved to a lower ranked team. I still wonder why some top-country teams don't do that in stead of complaining that they have to play EL..... |
Author: Forza-AZ
Date: 03-09-2012, 19:40
| The problem there is that you can't just apply for CL. So if teams don't apply for a European licence and suddenly end up in a CL-spot, they also won't be able to play in the CL.
And if teams withdraw after being qualified "just for EL", they will probably get a fine or even banished from European football for a year.
Teams that don't like EL will not want to risk any of that because it might cost them the chance to play in CL.
I know what reaction might come now. Some teams will never get near to the CL-spots. But these aren't the teams that complain about EL usually. The teams that complain are the teams that think everything other then CL isn't worth playing in. |
Author: Lorric
Date: 03-09-2012, 20:05
| The Intertoto Cup used to be optional, so the team that qualified could opt out if they wanted to, and the next team in line could take the spot if so, or they too could opt out and so on. |
Author: NunoSLB
Date: 04-09-2012, 01:52
| @Lorric Draft spots are the reward a team there gets for doing well in the previous season, just like here they get to play European Competitions. So there are some similarities in that regard.
@rpo.castro You awnsered your own question: money is ALMOST everything, not everything. How different is it for you to buy all the best players, way above market value, with petro-dollars, from buying a european competition spot? |
Author: Lorric
Date: 04-09-2012, 05:21
| I thought the best draft picks went to the worst teams in American sports. |
Author: dbaker
Date: 04-09-2012, 07:00
| Buying a playoff spot never happens anywhere. Buying players, sure, but you still have to play the games. (Even then, the more common case in American sports is that either the player's contract runs out and they can sign anywhere, or two teams trade players and/or draft picks instead of buying them outright.) It's ludicrous that you would even attempt to compare those two, much less comparing them to stopping the clock while the ball is out of play or adding some way to review potential goals (both of which I would like to see - the former would greatly reduce time-wasting, and there are so few goals that missing a legitimate goal or awarding one incorrectly is very likely to change the outcome, so it's critical to get those calls as accurate as possible, whether by some sort of automated system or a video monitor that the fourth official can quickly access). |
Author: rpo.castro
Date: 04-09-2012, 11:06
Edited by: rpo.castro at: 04-09-2012, 11:06 | @NunoSLB I don't agree that money is everything or almost. If it was how could Porto win 2 Champions League and 2 Uefa Cup's? Buying players is very very different from buying spots. Look for all the teams with pretol-dolares and how many succeed? 2? 3? (Chelsea and City?)
Better than buying spots, you could forbid the other teams of winning the titles like your teams used to do in the Dicatorship times.
Just one more troll |
Author: Malko
Date: 04-09-2012, 11:52
Edited by: Malko at: 04-09-2012, 11:54 | I disagree completely. Why should a teram then struggle in the national competition to get place 2 or 3 or 4....if they can play CL even if they do not get these places. Once the title decided, there would be no more fight for the CL and EL places.....the national championships would suffer from it. From the best ones to the last ones.... rpo.castro, Porto is the only exception of modern (money) times......even Monaco was at this time in the final. We cannot imagine such a final today.....and I regret it. But a final Paris SG - Anzhi is more probable than Porto-Monaco.(in the coming years, Monaco doesn't play presently in CL) |
Author: bbi
Date: 04-09-2012, 12:54
| OMG sorry but I think this is most absurd idea I ever heard in these forums. |
Author: Ricardo
Date: 04-09-2012, 16:56
| If it was possible I would field an amateur team(€ 0,- costs) and spend all my money on buuying berths - so for 100 Mln or so you could buy a spot in the CL final, much less as Chelsea, City or PSG have spent |
Author: Malko
Date: 04-09-2012, 19:34
| ...maybe you even buy the title....... |
Author: rpo.castro
Date: 05-09-2012, 11:46
| @ Malko Tell that to PSG owner. Probably it's cheaper buying the title instead of buying players.
I don't believe that Anzhi will make a great performance ever, and even with the money PSG has, the chance of playing a final is very little. Real Madrid, Barcelona, Man.United, AS Milan and Bayern will be allways the main candidates.
For those who think money can buy tittles, look for all the teams bought by millionaires: Dínamo Moscow & Terek Grozni (Rus), Fulham, Reading, N. Forest(Eng), Málaga, getafe racing santander (Esp), Red Bull Salzburg (Aut), Servette (Sui).
How about their performance?
PS: If i was Reading fan, I would fell good, because the owner's wife is absolute gorgeous-an victoria's secrets angel(google Katsia Zingarevich,) |
Author: Malko
Date: 05-09-2012, 12:02
Edited by: Malko at: 05-09-2012, 12:05 | rpo.castro, no: Milan lost its best players to...Paris ! Paris has a better team than Milan. And ...Bayern ? C'mon, no....fair job, but not more, and they won't get into a final again in the next years.Quarterfinals maybe. ManU also can be beaten by a good french team. Only real and Barcelona are still in front, but PSG will grow up to them. |
Author: rpo.castro
Date: 05-09-2012, 13:30
| But Milan still has a good team with young players. Next season Milan will be on top to. Man. United is very strong this year. Absolute the favorite to win Premier league. But of course they can be beaten by every team (even from Kazakistan) but the odds are in for Man. United.
If PSG is so strong, Lorient and Ajaccio must have huge teams...
I'm not saying that PSG has not a good squad. But there are better, with several decades on top. |
Author: Lorric
Date: 05-09-2012, 14:25
Edited by: Lorric at: 05-09-2012, 14:29 | @ rpo.castro
I can't speak for others, but Fukham is run "properly". They never, ever splash cash. Their owner makes a profit from Fulham, Fulham are actually run as a business, a money making business, they run a tight ship at Fulham as opposed to a boy playing with a toy. That's the kind of club that is the problem, every club could be owned by billionaires if those billionaires were trying to turn a profit, not flex their financial muscle. Abramovic won the Champions League with Chelsea, he's won the Premier League, he's won several FA Cups. And lost hundreds of millions. I don't know as much about Reading and Forest, but I don't see them blowing cash either.
In strictly business terms, Fulham are a well run company. Chelsea are a joke. |
Author: pip_the_red
Date: 05-09-2012, 15:14
| Off topic I know, sorry, but surely an early contender for typo of the season from Mr Lorric there...... |
Author: rpo.castro
Date: 05-09-2012, 15:55
| @ Lorric I didn't knew the management system of Fulham, but if it so, it's very good. I agree with you, when Abramovich leaves Chelsea (because he will) Chelsea will colapse because is not self sustained. Let?s see if Uefa's Fair Play rules will make a change on that. |
Author: Lorric
Date: 05-09-2012, 16:01
Edited by: Lorric at: 05-09-2012, 16:09 | @ Pip
Ha ha ha! I didn't see that! I shall leave it alone for the pleasure of others
EDIT:
@rpo.castro
I thought I'd look for something on Fulham quickly. Unfortunately the Fulham Forum is down for maintenence, it looks like there was some good stuff there, but these will do for what I could find:
http://www.alfayed.com/news-and-opinion/your-letters/wayne.aspx
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2076126/Fulham-announce-4-8m- profit.html |
Author: UploaderAfonso
Date: 05-09-2012, 17:58
| And Malko's obsession for french teams still continues... |
Author: Lorric
Date: 05-09-2012, 20:04
| Indeed. Sooner or later he will come and jack any thread, no matter what it's about, and try to turn it into France>Germany if the thread lasts long enough. |
Author: UploaderAfonso
Date: 05-09-2012, 20:21
| He already have in the other topic... |
Author: Malko
Date: 06-09-2012, 12:31
| Lorric. First, the 2 first games of a squad like PSG do not say anything. Second, i already told you that in Ligue 1, there a re no really weak teams like in other leagues, where the favorites automatically win 9 times out of 10. That makes Ligue 1 more interesting too. You say Lorient, but Lorient would be in Italy or gemany in the Top 10... |
Author: rpo.castro
Date: 06-09-2012, 17:09
| Malko How can a Championship that in the recent past had a champions for 8 years in strike be competitive? Competitive compared with luxembourg perhaps.
There the name of huge teams of french football:
Arles-Avignon Grenoble US Boulogne Le Mans Le Havre
All finishing the championship with around 20 points.
There's only one person thath thinks Ligue 1 is better than Bundesliga. Thath person is Malko and even him is not very sure of what is he saying. Is just to annoy the other people.
Ah, and CR7 is not the world best player. Probably is Ribery or Nasri. In 2 aspects they are better: belligerency against other players (even own team) and with hookers. |
Author: nemesys
Date: 09-09-2012, 02:41
Edited by: nemesys at: 09-09-2012, 03:10 | OT, not the first on this thread, however sorry all about it.
Raspberries are the best fruits, better than mangoes and apricots.
Indicate the best footballer in the world is as arguable as this.
It could be a nice conversation, but not something can be demonstrate as a fact somehow. Someone could pick Messi, Ronaldo, Xavi, Iniesta, ... and so on, and his opinion would be as correct as the one of the next guy who picks the next player in the list. Because it is a matter of opinions based on specific memories. For the best player of history, is even less demonstrable, since the "voter" selective memory will have an even bigger part on the vote, and often people speaks even of players who were on the pitch before they born.
The only thing someone can indicate without risk of error is which player that person believes to be the best, which is its personal MVP (most valuable player).
Besides this, I think Pirlo for example is a player any coach would like to have in the squad as much as Messi or Ronaldo: but as you can't make a team of 11 players as Messi or Ronaldo, you cannot make a team of 11 players as Pirlo. Offensive players are more skilled technically, but in many teams some other players are even more important than the most skilled ones, either for athletic or tactical reasons (or even both), or even other reasons.
Football is a team sport with quite defined positions, so defining a single best player won't work so well and easily IMO: a personal MVP vote for a match / tournament / season / country / specific position / generation_of_players / all_football_history / ... is the closest you can get trying to indicate a best one.
But still, it will always be an arguable opinion. And this fact is part of the beauty of football (and football chatting) on my books!
End OT.
Note: I believe Forum 1 is a kind of "technical" forum about UEFA coefficients, so I guess most of the users would likely appreciate using the other one for longer discussions about football opinions, especially when not related somehow with UEFA coefficients: a single post with an OT opinion might be nice and interesting to read I guess, but "many posts long" OT argues, especially when crossing into different threads, IMHO are likely not so welcome for most of the people surfing those web-pages. Btw, IMHO, trying to avoid when possible to get involved too much into sterile "many posts long" argues could often be worth it. The topic of this thread for example could be an interesting subject (now lost) to discuss or read about.
Just my two cents, I could be wrong.
Cheers!
- nemesys
EDIT: (grammatical) corrections of few sentences in the "note" paragraph. I hope it makes sense in English now. |
Author: nemesys
Date: 09-09-2012, 12:12
| Back on topic.
What happens if a club qualified for a Uefa competition doesn't apply to get a Uefa license? It is the next ranked one domestically that (if it has the license) will qualify for the Uefa competition?
Because if so, then there is in facts not even the need for a selling rule: let say SmallClub finishes the domestic championship ranked higher than BigClub, but SmallClub doesn't wish to face an European football season the following year and would be happy to get some financial benefit from giving the privilege to BigClub, while BigClub is definitely willing to pay a bit for that privilege.
In this scenario it is not possible for SmallClub to don't apply for a Uefa license, and in exchange get some favor from BigClub in the next transfer market? I mean a player sold cheap, a couple of good youngster on loan for the season, or things like that?
Just wondering.
I think that what the OP proposes it is of course 200% wrong if thinking from the "I negate a privilege to someone who deserves it more imposing my own financial power" point of view: if it is SmallClub to qualify, then of course SmallClub must be allowed to play in Europe, if so the club wishes, no matter the financial power BigClub has. But looking from the "it is my privilege, and I would prefer get some financial benefit rather than play into the competition, because I chose so" here the OP could have a point.
Just my 2 cents, I could be wrong.
Cheers!
- nemesys |
Author: Forza-AZ
Date: 09-09-2012, 16:38
Edited by: Forza-AZ at: 09-09-2012, 16:40 | What happens if a club qualified for a Uefa competition doesn't apply to get a Uefa license? It is the next ranked one domestically that (if it has the license) will qualify for the Uefa competition?
That is the case indeed. However clubs usually already have to apply for a licence before the final table is known, so it won't be easy for a big club to just "bribe" a small club to not apply, since they might pass them still in the leagues last rounds, or they might be passed themselves by another club. Also it would be very easy to see if a big club sells players below the normal value to exactly the club that "handed" them a spot in Europe.
Also small clubs would almost always favour a chance to play in Europe over just getting a few players from a big club, since these small clubs usually don't get to play in Europe (often) so it is a big price for them. So if their financial situation is good enough for EL, then they will almost always apply for a licence. |
Author: nemesys
Date: 10-09-2012, 23:45
| @Forza-AZ Thanks for replying. Appreciated.
Cheers!
- nemesys |
|
|