Champions league Shake up

redout

I can't really see this making a huge difference at all. Seems like a complete waste of time. If they really wanted to Spice things up then the should have just made it an open draw. It mentions in the article that the 4th place team from Spain, England and Italy can meet but if you look at the graph I dont see how its possibe. It says 5 winners of round 3 meet 4th from leagues 1 - 3 + 3rd from leagues 4+5.



Big four to feel wind of European change





By David Ornstein




The Premier League's big four have made such a habit out of challenging for Champions League glory that it is almost impossible to imagine one of them missing out on the tournament altogether.
Manchester United, Arsenal, Liverpool and Chelsea have contested Europe's blue riband club competition every year since 2003, reaching at least one final apiece since 2005.
606: DEBATE

What changes, if any, would you like to see made to the Champions League?



David O, BBC Sport

But, under changes to the qualifying rounds that come into effect next season, the team finishing fourth in the Premier League could be in for a rude awakening.
Liverpool needed a last-gasp goal against Standard Liege just to come through qualifying in August and now that process is likely to be even more difficult.
Not for the first time, Uefa president Michel Platini is looking to shake things up.
Platini wants to reduce the number of non-champions from countries such as England, Spain and Italy and increase the number of champions from the likes of Bulgaria, Slovakia and Latvia in the competition. Big four's Champions League income since 1992
Manchester United:
£226,027m
Arsenal:
£179,293m
Chelsea:
£145,667m
Liverpool:
£122,574m


A qualifying path will, therefore, be reserved solely for non-champions from the higher-ranked countries - and that could see England's fourth team pitted against the fourth team from Spain or Italy.
"We introduced this new format after discussions with the clubs but of course there will be losers," Uefa's general secretary David Taylor told BBC Sport.
"To the big clubs who may miss out I would say tough luck. This is a sporting competition and there is no guarantee of success.
"This is good for European football because we are refreshing the competition and we will have increased interest with clubs who have possibly never played in the Champions League before."

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

ArmaniJeanss

Huge difference I would have thought.
The 4th place place teams in Italy/Spain/England will come down the middle path in the diagram above which will guarantee them a much harder tie in their qualifying round.
It looks as if the draw is unseeded as well so you could have Sevilla v Liverpool, Fenerbache v Roma etc.

Unearthly

There is already a load of crap fodder in the group stages

solution

ADD MORE

load of bollocks tbh

yahoo_moe

If the goal is to reduce the concentration of teams from the top 3 leagues, why give the 3rd-placed teams in those leagues automatic qualification now?

Also, is the final qualifying round in Path 2 open and unseeded, as Armani Jeanss has it above, or do the five teams from Russia, Bulgaria, etc. that win their first qualifying matches in that path each draw a team from one of the top 5 leagues? Reads more like the latter to me from that diagram, although surely that can't be the case?

Bounty Hunter

id like if there was some sort of system where the league, FA cup and CC winners all qualified for the competition while the next highest league finisher had to qualify for the competition through the knockout stages although itd prob still be the same sides qualifying but it would add importance to the cups and mean that atleast 3 of the 4 teams in the CL could claim to be champions.

UnitedIrishman

Unearthly wrote: »

There is already a load of crap fodder in the group stages

solution

ADD MORE

load of bollocks tbh

Well when you look at the likes of Anorthosis who would've seemed to have been the worst in the competition, look at how well they're doing.

Looks a good option. Of course, I've always thought it should go back to the top two in each league, bring back the CWC and make the UEFA Cup a knockout system again. That said, it'll never happen with the amount of money clubs need to run themselves.

Mushy

UnitedIrishman wrote: »

Well when you look at the likes of Anorthosis who would've seemed to have been the worst in the competition, look at how well they're doing.

Looks a good option. Of course, I've always thought it should go back to the top two in each league, bring back the CWC and make the UEFA Cup a knockout system again. That said, it'll never happen with the amount of money clubs need to run themselves.

Yes, and also have Uefa cup on Tuesday night, CL on Wednesday, and CWC on Thursday...would be perfect.

Know what ya mean about the money, but it'd also make clubs really re-budget and spend less on players and wages.

Dont be at yourself

Champions League should be for domestic champions only.

The rest can go into the UEFA Cup, which should receive a bigger slice of the moolah to make it more prestigious.

Jazzy

so we are going to see even more low quality teams in the group phases? brilliant Platini, just marvellous

Bubs101

Jazzy wrote: »

so we are going to see even more low quality teams in the group phases? brilliant Platini, just marvellous

That's an ignorant attitude. Recently the lower quality teams have been making the Champion's League interesting. Cluj beating Roma away from home when the previous year had seen two different Romanian teams not disgrace themselves. Anathorsis beating what are effectively local Greek rivals, drawing with Inter and going 2-0 up away to Bremen. Liege nearly knocking out Liverpool. Bate drawing with Juve at home and Zenit away. Aab beating Celtic at home and coming out of one of the biggest home fortresses in Europe with a point and drawing with Villareal. Kaunas knocked rangers out. Celtic fans remember Artmedia. Liverpool fans remember Basle

Maybe because of football betting gamblers have picked up on it quicker but the "bad" teams are no longer guaranteed 3 points and add far more to the competition than the likes of Bremen, Bordeaux and PSV. They've re-introduced romance to a game that's been so dominated by money recently.The worse teams have made great strides in recent years and Jazzy's opinion is so arrogant and stupid

Bobalicious93

so where is the LOI ranked? between the 16-47 bracket I assume?

redout

Bobalicious93 wrote: »

so where is the LOI ranked? between the 16-47 bracket I assume?

30th behind Lithuania and in front of Latvia

Jazzy

Bubs101 wrote: »

and Jazzy's opinion is so arrogant and stupid

oohhh mercy
just seems sorta thrown in there in a sentence that doesnt make sense.


i dunno, i think "putting the romance" back in the CL is nonsense considering how driven by money it is. what i think will happen is just the creation of big teams in small ponds in the smaller leagues. they will get funded by CL money and end up dominating their league for years and years, Lyon are a pretty good example of this, PSV to another extent.
Ultimately i think it will make things come closer to some sort of european super league which in turn will be bad for the domestic leagues. to me it just seems that Platini is bent on breaking the "big 4" in english football. hes had it in for them since day one.... of course when real madrid where getting their debt written off by the spanish govt. and where dominating in europe that was hokey dokey.. in fact it was "romantic" to watch the "galaticos"

Mr. Presentable

Jazzy wrote: »

so we are going to see even more low quality teams in the group phases? brilliant Platini, just marvellous

Oh, please. The champions of Bulgaria surely have more right to a place at the Champions League table, than the 4th place team from Italy, England etc.

For those too young to remember, there was a competition once called the European Cup, where the champions of their respective leagues played in an open draw. It was the finest football competition in the world. It was replaced with a sham whose sole purpose is to generate revenue for the rich clubs. In fact, the richer you are, the more it will generate for you. Nice, eh?

Dont be at yourself

Seriously, what is wrong with the 2nd, 3rd and 4th place teams playing in the UEFA Cup? As it stands, the UEFA Cup is of no interest to the top tier of teams, and by extension the TV audience, but the addition of the likes of Juventus, Real Madrid, Liverpool and company would without doubt draw in the audiences, the sponsorship and the cash.

Oh, and bring back the Cup Winner's Cup too!

redout

I reckon the whole thing even the group stages should be one big open draw. If a team from a weaker country ie: Cluj, Anathorsis, BATE Borisov etc. has been good enough to qualify for the most prestigious tournament in club football then I dont see why it is they are somewhat punished by being ranked in the lower tier's and therefore put in a group with a tier one and two team. It would make for a more exciting tournament if the draw was open. We could then have the possibility of a group of Man Utd, AC Milan, Barcelona, Chelsea etc. or BATE, Anathorsis, Cluj, Aalborg etc. It would make the tournament harder on the bigger teams and give the weaker a better chance of advancing.

ShooterSF

This is a good idea but the chance of an English team meeting a spanish or italian in the qualifier is 2/9. Thats if it isnt seeded obviously.

To those complaining about more fodder into the league that's a poor attitude.

It'll make the English league most of us watch more interesting as the top 4 fight for the top 3 spots knowing 4th might find it tough to get into the champions League.
Leagues in smaller countries champions will have a better chance of making the competition allowing money to flow into their leagues. This will allow for better teams in time in minor European leagues.
The next step is to unseed all qualifiers and play a knockout tournament giving an equal chance to each. For example theres 80 qualifying teams for 10 spots, Draw 10 8 team tournaments with no seeds winner of each qualifies.

Also on another point In path 1 it says 3 teams join winners of leagues 16-47 (32 teams, count 'em if you don't believe me) makes 35 teams. How do you get 17 winners from 35???

Mushy

ShooterSF wrote: »

This is a good idea but the chance of an English team meeting a spanish or italian in the qualifier is 2/9. Thats if it isnt seeded obviously.

To those complaining about more fodder into the league that's a poor attitude.

It'll make the English league most of us watch more interesting as the top 4 fight for the top 3 spots knowing 4th might find it tough to get into the champions League.
Leagues in smaller countries champions will have a better chance of making the competition allowing money to flow into their leagues. This will allow for better teams in time in minor European leagues.
The next step is to unseed all qualifiers and play a knockout tournament giving an equal chance to each. For example theres 80 qualifying teams for 10 spots, Draw 10 8 team tournaments with no seeds winner of each qualifies.

Also on another point In path 1 it says 3 teams join winners of leagues 16-47 (32 teams, count 'em if you don't believe me) makes 55 teams. How do you get 17 winners from 55???

And to be pedantic...doesn't it come to 35?:D

But I do see the point your making. Will be interesting to see the logic in it alright.

Dont be at yourself

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gHorOt6KKw

The new group system is explained in the above video. (about the 1.20 mark)

PHB

I disagree with the old champions league system of champions only. You can still be the best team in Europe if you didn't win the league the previous year. CL pretty much ensures the best team that year wins it, making the comp much tougher.

That said, I dont think 4th place in the PL should get a place. I would be in favour of something like, 4th vs. 5th in the PL play a playoff to decide who gets into the CL, then that team plays a playoff against another top league (as suggested) to get into the CL. I want to break the stranglehold the big four have every year, it needs to be shaken up.

herbieflowers

But surely if you win your respective league then you're the best team over that season?

ShooterSF

Mushy wrote: »

And to be pedantic...doesn't it come to 35?:D

But I do see the point your making. Will be interesting to see the logic in it alright.

Whoops dont know what I did there :pac:

Mr.Nice Guy

Fair play to Platini. If the money-men had their way the competition would be expanded to allow five teams from England, Spain etc to compete. The rich get richer and the truly deserving miss out. I personally welcome any effort to allow actual European champions to participate in the competition.

mike65

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

Oh, and bring back the Cup Winner's Cup too!

Deffo that, it was easily the most unpredictable and entertaining euro competition.

titan18

It should be top 2 from the big leagues and the Champions of the other countries. Then make the Uefa Cup more lucrative and bring back the CWC.

I think it needs to be shaken. Even in the present format, you get sides like Liverpool and a Porto vs Monaco final and no one could say that they were the best side in Europe in those seasons. Like any knockout competition, luck plays a huge part in it.

citytillidie

titan18 wrote: »

It should be top 2 from the big leagues and the Champions of the other countries. Then make the Uefa Cup more lucrative and bring back the CWC.

I think it needs to be shaken. Even in the present format, you get sides like Liverpool and a Porto vs Monaco final and no one could say that they were the best side in Europe in those seasons. Like any knockout competition, luck plays a huge part in it.

Why point out Liverpool when the first non champions to win the champions league were Man Utd.

You know a champions from each country is not going to happen UEFA want there big pay day and that mean more big name teams.

PHB what if the team in 5th finishes 10 points behind the team in 4th are really think a play off would be fair between them two teams? Holland league system tried this but it failed and its gone back to like everyone else.

m@cc@

citytillidie wrote: »

Why point out Liverpool when the first non champions to win the champions league were Man Utd.

Yes, but Liverpool finished 5th in their own league making a mockery of any 'Best In Europe' claims they may have had.

citytillidie

m@cc@ wrote: »

Yes, but Liverpool finished 5th in their own league making a mockery of any 'Best In Europe' claims they may have had.

Did not stop Real Madrid when they won the Champions League and Finsihed 5th in the same season in 2000

podge018

Liverpool finishing 5th the year they won it is irrelevant.

Aston Villa finished 11th in 81/82 when they won the old style European Cup.

Xavi6

I think it should be limited to just the champions and the richest club from each country.

eZe^

Xavi6 wrote: »

I think it should be limited to just the champions and the richest club from each country.

Or the cross town rivals of the champions? :pac:

m@cc@

citytillidie wrote: »

Did not stop Real Madrid when they won the Champions League and Finsihed 5th in the same season in 2000

Well, I didn't see Real mentioned anywhere. You questioned why Liverpool were mentioned.

ArmaniJeanss

As a bit of trivia in the first season (1955?) it wasn't the Champions, it was a nominated team from each league, so if people want to go back to what the competition originally was, then thats the model to follow.

I think the breakup of Eastern Europe was one of the final nails in the coffin of the 'one team per league' system. Whereas the 1970s/80s competition had either a Moscow team or Dynamo Kiev representing USSR, and Hayduk Split or whoever from Yugoslavia, now you would have, what is it, 23 teams where previously you would have had 2.

So going back to 1 team per league would actually be grossly unfair on Western Europe.

Also if the competition had never previously taken place, and was being started from scratch next season, I think 99.99% of football fans would vote for the current 'best leagues get more places' system as the case for the old system tends to start and end on its 'nostalgia value', and has no pure sporting merit.

Mr. Presentable

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I think the breakup of Eastern Europe was one of the final nails in the coffin of the 'one team per league' system. Whereas the 1970s/80s competition had either a Moscow team or Dynamo Kiev representing USSR, and Hayduk Split or whoever from Yugoslavia, now you would have, what is it, 23 teams where previously you would have had 2.

So going back to 1 team per league would actually be grossly unfair on Western Europe..

I don't agree. If the teams from"Western" Europe are good enough that won't represent a problem.

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Also if the competition had never previously taken place, and was being started from scratch next season, I think 99.99% of football fans would vote for the current 'best leagues get more places' system as the case for the old system tends to start and end on its 'nostalgia value', and has no pure sporting merit.

But there's no sporting merit in the current set-up. It's all about who has the most money or biggest overdraft.

I dare say if the EPL/PLE/SerieA was ranked among the second or third tier of leagues for number of teams to qualify you'd be singing a different tune.

ArmaniJeanss

nipplenuts wrote: »

I don't agree. If the teams from"Western" Europe are good enough that won't represent a problem.

You don't think that the split up into 20 leagues has given the best regional teams in the old Soviet Union an unfair advantage on qualifying for European competition? I'd have thought this was a self evident truth beyond argument to be honest.

nipplenuts wrote: »

But there's no sporting merit in the current set-up. It's all about who has the most money or biggest overdraft.

Isn't all professional team sport like this, whether its Munster rugby being able to afford All Blacks players that Calvisano can't, ditto in European basketball etc. The football system already compensates for this by only having 3 or 4 teams from the top leagues qualify. Arguably Everton and Aston Villa, on football quality, deserve to be in the competition as much as say the champions of the Faroes.

nipplenuts wrote: »

I dare say if the EPL/PLE/SerieA was ranked among the second or third tier of leagues for number of teams to qualify you'd be singing a different tune.

No, I'd love it, just love it if there was more movement amongst the tiers, I'd hate to think that Italy/England/Spain will be the Top3 for ever - I'm always hoping for a resurgence in German club football fortunes.

mormank

i think the point is that right now the best teams are in england spain etc..but if you let the champions of weaker leagues in to group stages it would mean more money for them and a more attractive proposition for players to play there. therefore in the long run they should get stronger..howevere a counter argument would be that norwegian teamthat qualifies every year and has been in the group stages every year for the past umpteen years and dont seem to have improved..

however i would love it if the Loi got an automatic spot for the group stages over 4th in the english league. i know this might affect my beloved liverpool but i would have to add my weight to those who said the best format was Uefa cup tuesday Euro cup wednesdayand CWC on thursday...not to mention the fact that the CWC was the only trophy that eluded liverpool, we should bring it back til thepool can finish off their trophy cabinet properly at least