Champions League PlayOff

everdead.ie

rarnes1 wrote: »

What if the FA cup winners have already qualified for the CL by finishing in the top 3?

What then? Give it to the runners up? Not very fair imo.

No revert back to the league then like with the league cup at least they'd be the champions of something then also i'd be more inclined to give them a spot in the group stages instead of qualifying round stop managers putting out a half a**ed team

JPA

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

Yes, but this proposed solution isn't tackling the problem, it's tackling a symptom.

It's an attempt to break the monopoly, although it might just make it worse.

L'prof

JPA wrote: »

While people might disagree with the play off idea do they not agree that gap in revenue between the champions league clubs and the rest is distorting the league?
We're talking 30 million a season.

Which, from the original article only represents 8–13% of their income The champions league money isn't the main problem really.

JPA

jasonorr wrote: »

Which, from the original article only represents 8–13% of their income The champions league money isn't the main problem really.

But being in the Champions League means these clubs get more from sponsors, can charge higher prices for tickets, have more matches to to make money from, sell more merchandise and make more TV money. On the surface it seems they don't benefit substantially more but in reality they are raking it in compared to the rest.

L'prof

JPA wrote: »

But being in the Champions League means these clubs get more from sponsors, can charge higher prices for tickets, have more matches to to make money from, sell more merchandise and make more TV money. On the surface it seems they don't benefit substantially more but in reality they are raking it in compared to the rest.

Maybe you're right.

Still, I dunno about this new proposal. Maybe something has to be done to share a bit more of the money around, I just don't think this is the right way to do it!

PHB

Look, I just want to break up the top4 monopoly. What other ways are here to do this? If we can all accept this as an end goal, and just pick the best approach to it that'd be great.

Mikeyt086

7th placed team does not deserve Champions League football.

The 1st-4th best teams do.

L'prof

PHB wrote: »

Look, I just want to break up the top4 monopoly. What other ways are here to do this? If we can all accept this as an end goal, and just pick the best approach to it that'd be great.

Billionaire sugar daddies ftw!

The Volt

Mikeyt086 wrote: »

7th placed team does not deserve Champions League football.

The 1st-4th best teams do.

The champions do.

RandolphEsq

1st place should be the only ones to get automatic qualification, then 2nd - 9th battle it out for the other 3 spots. It's 1st, then everybody else
That seems to be the fairest and most reasonable

Bubs101

RandolphEsq wrote: »

1st place should be the only ones to get automatic qualification, then 2nd - 9th battle it out for the other 3 spots. It's 1st, then everybody else
That seems to be the fairest and most reasonable

:D

The fairest is the current system, team get there on merit

LuckyCharms

Certain supporters will obviously feel aggrieved by this new system being proposed.All of the current English clubs build their whole fiscal year around champions league football (not just qualification0.

While Chelsea and Manchester United fans may not be bothered by the decision i am sure liverpool fans will be very disturbed by this development. Their failure to qualify from the group stages this year hit their bottom line, removing them from the competition for a whole year could prove catastrophic as the club is already in a precarious state atm.

Arsenal fans may be worried about the prospect of losing star players and not playing at the highest level but losing out on champions league football for a year would not cause an internal meltdown that would happen at Liverpool as Arsenal is run in a very prudent manner even if some fans do not like it.

Something these clubs may not have considered in ManCity.Whether people like it or not, the likelihood is that they will be part of the so called big 4 in years to come and the big question is who is going to make way for them.The likelihood will be Arsenal of Liverpool unless something drastic and unknown happens to Chelsea or Manchester United in the foreseeable future.

This new proposal is obviously a new money spinner aimed at replacing the 39th game initiative but maybe it is something that is needed as the current financial state of some of the clubs chasing the Cl places is unsustainable and this would provide a substantial risk to these clubs and may prove to be an incentive to clubs like Liverpool to get their affairs in order because unless something is done soon ,another portsmouth like disaster is just bound to happen and sooner or later one of the big clubs will fall.

Whether it is fair or not depends on which end of the spectrum you are looking at.Whatever happens , something has to be done in order to ensure the stability of the clubs are represent English football on the biggest stage of them all.

stovelid

LOl at the protestations of meritocracy when a third or fourth place team (that technically could end up a serious amount of points behind the winners of the league) is somehow deemed worthy of a place in competition for champions. Formerly, a finish outside the top two would have been a failure for one of the top clubs but now it's rewarded with a trip on the European gravy-train.

Why should clubs outside the top four listen to cant about meritocracy from clubs like Liverpool or Arsenal who for all their advantage over the majority of clubs in the division still often sneak into the champions league on the alteration of rules by UEFA to suck up to the big clubs?

Why not just get back to a dog-eat-dog knock-out European Cup for champions and let the big-name runners-up restore some credibility to the Europa?

For all the talk of fairness: read vested interests of the top four clubs whose ability to attract big players is reliant on the circular monopoly of their near-guaranteed attendance in the "Champions" League.

Dont be at yourself

PHB wrote: »

Look, I just want to break up the top4 monopoly. What other ways are here to do this? If we can all accept this as an end goal, and just pick the best approach to it that'd be great.

Salary caps, transfer spending caps, a more equal distribution of money by the Premier League and by UEFA. A more narrowly-focused CL and a rejuvenated UEFA Cup, restoring it to its former glory, increasing its prestige, marketability and prize money.

They would all help to break the current monopoly. Instead, the Premier League seem intent on shifting the goalposts.

It's also interesting to note that the big four hasn't been around forever. In 5 of the last 10 seasons, one of them finished outside the big four. Man City are shorter odds than Liverpool to finish in the top 4, and there are plenty of other teams in contention.

Looking longer-term, Liverpool are crippled without investment and a stadium. Arsenal seem to have stalled under Wenger. Chelsea have an aging squad and an owner reluctant to invest any more money. Man Utd's debt problems are more apparent than ever. In short, there's very little to suggest that the 'big four' as a concept will be around in ten years time - with or without these hare-brained schemes.

Pepe LeFrits

stovelid wrote: »

LOl at the protestations of meritocracy when a third or fourth place team (that technically could end up a serious amount of points behind the winners of the league) is somehow deemed worthy of a place in competition for champions. Formerly, a finish outside the top two would have been a failure for one of the top clubs but now it's rewarded with a trip on the European gravy-train.

It also means teams in 5th and 6th get European football when before they would not have.

It clearly isn't a competition for only the national champions anymore. It is still a competition for the best teams around, which play-offs would change. Yeah, so the name is a misnomer. Move on ffs.

Why should clubs outside the top four listen to cant about meritocracy from clubs like Liverpool or Arsenal who for all their advantage over the majority of clubs in the division still often sneak into the champions league on the alteration of rules by UEFA to suck up to the big clubs?

What does this refer to?

Why not just get back to a dog-eat-dog knock-out European Cup for champions and let the big-name runners-up restore some credibility to the Europa?

I suspect shrinking European football would be opposed by pretty much all the clubs.

For all the talk of fairness: read vested interests of the top four clubs whose ability to attract big players is reliant on the circular monopoly of their near-guaranteed attendance in the "Champions" League.

This proposal isn't going to change that imo. It's a much bigger issue.

OPENROAD

LuckyCharms wrote: »

While Chelsea and Manchester United fans may not be bothered by the decision

What makes you think both clubs will continue to finish in the top two?

Columbia

I think it's about time they started reconsidering the name of this competition if they're thinking about allowing the 7th best team a shot at it. In my opinion, 7th down to about 14th represents mid-table, if you are in those positions you are a mid-table team. Why should a mid-table team be allowed to compete in a competition called the Champions League? It's getting a bit silly.

I think the winners and runners-up in the EPL ought to get the two automatic places, with 3rd and 4th involved in a play-off to go into the qualifying round, along with the winners of the FA Cup. Europa League winners deserve a spot too, but that's off-topic.

Although taking my neutral cap off, I would definitely fancy Everton's chances in any May play-offs against Liverpool, Spurs or Villa...

stovelid

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

What does this refer to?
.

That it's a bit rich to complain about inclusion in the champions league being meritocratic when you could conceivably end up dozens of points behind the winner of the league and still qualify.

I'm not hung up on a name ("ffs"). I'm saying that I want the premier European competition to be open to champions only and not an aberration of a competition constructed as a sop to big clubs by UEFA to stop them forming a breakaway league.

I'm allowed to hold such views, no? Even they are heretical to the continued financial interests of the big clubs.

Bubs101

stovelid wrote: »

That it's a bit rich to complain about inclusion in the champions league being meritocratic when you could conceivably end up dozens of points behind the winner of the league and still qualify.

I'm not hung up on a name ("ffs"). I'm saying that I want the premier European competition to be open to champions only and not an aberration of a competition constructed as a sop to big clubs by UEFA to stop them forming a breakaway league.

I'm allowed to hold such views, no? Even they are heretical to the continued financial interests of the big clubs.

Wouldn't that just make the Premiership more boring? If one club got the only spot for a couple of years on the bounce then they'd have more resources than the rest of the league as opposed to having 3 teams in their bracket.

stovelid

Bubs101 wrote: »

Wouldn't that just make the Premiership more boring? If one club got the only spot for a couple of years on the bounce then they'd have more resources than the rest of the league as opposed to having 3 teams in their bracket.

Good point and fair enough although I'm not sure the other top four clubs would fall that far behind given the percentage of revenue that CL brings in to the top four clubs.

It boils down to your point of view, I guess. I was brought up seeing the best club in the country go into the European Cup and for me it made it far more exciting. I find it hard to muster as much interest in the deluge of games in the now-Champions League until it gets down to the nitty-gritty.

I suppose the idea that a smaller club could end up in a play-off restores that element of uncertainly for me that is missing when the competition is so obviously geared towards easing the powerful clubs into the CL without upset.

And I support United so it's not as if it's purely a gripe against the big clubs on principle.

JPA

Bubs101 wrote: »

Wouldn't that just make the Premiership more boring? If one club got the only spot for a couple of years on the bounce then they'd have more resources than the rest of the league as opposed to having 3 teams in their bracket.

Ya, 4 teams getting all the money is very exciting.

L'prof

This makes sense.

Says that if the premier league were to go ahead with plans, they could be putting the place in jeopardy! If that were the case and Uefa were to consider taking the place off them, then I don't think they'll push the idea any further!

Pepe LeFrits

stovelid wrote: »

That it's a bit rich to complain about inclusion in the champions league being meritocratic when you could conceivably end up dozens of points behind the winner of the league and still qualify.

I'm not hung up on a name ("ffs"). I'm saying that I want the premier European competition to be open to champions only and not an aberration of a competition constructed as a sop to big clubs by UEFA to stop them forming a breakaway league.

I'm allowed to hold such views, no? Even they are heretical to the continued financial interests of the big clubs.

Sure, but LOLing at people claiming introducing a play-off system to override league performance over the course of a season as being unmeritocratic is wrong. The current system is meritocratic; you just don't like the competition format.

Given that the tournament is held the following season the league champions frequently are no longer the best team in that league... which casts doubt as to whether your idealised format would hold any more legitimacy for being the 'premier' European competition.

PHB

If you made the Champions League the champions league, what would actually happen?

Barca, United, Inter and a bunch of other Europeans would compete against a ****load of awful teams.

Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool, Real Madrid, Atlecico, AC Milan, Juventus would compete in the UEFA cup.

I'm not sure which would be more interesting. It'd be pretty easy to argue the second competition would be more difficult to win. To win the first one, you'd probably have to beat two fantastic teams. To win the second one, you'd probably have to beat 3-4 very good teams.

Pepe LeFrits

For an interesting example of what can happen with only 1 CL space, look at Norway. Previously unheralded Rosenborg came to prominence in the late 80s/early 90s as the Norwegian Premier League came into existence. The combination of that and the CL money that came with their first qualification for the CL in 1995 helped them win 14 titles in a row.

The expanded CL format isn't the only reason for the imbalance in modern football. Revenue coming from domestic competitions has sky-rocketed too and if anything, expanding the CL has reduced the likelihood of the bigger leagues becoming like the Norwegian league has tended to be.

Pepe LeFrits

FWIW I agree that the financial imbalance in football is a problem. I just don't think this is the right sort of measure to be introducing. Banning loans of U23 players, removing financial rewards from competitions and spreading the proceeds more evenly... that I'd be more interested in seeing.

LuckyCharms

OPENROAD wrote: »

What makes you think both clubs will continue to finish in the top two?

Chelsea do have an ageing squad but they also have an owner with a large vested interest in the club and its continuing success and seems intent on growing the club and ensuring its financial independence.


While Sir Alex is still around as manager i do not see Utd being outside the top 3.While their financial situation is precarious, there will always be people interested in buying the club due to the sheer size of their fanbase and the different markets that can be tapped by the club.Also Utd haven't been out of the top 3 in around 20 years.

As the league stands atm the only club that can topple the current regime is Man City.While Arsenal are building an exciting team , they are too prudent with their finances to challenge for the League .Just look at this season, what team would play for much of the season without a actually forward in the team.

Liverpool are just ina mess atm and will remain that way until a new owner is found.

Dont be at yourself

PHB wrote: »

If you made the Champions League the champions league, what would actually happen?

Barca, United, Inter and a bunch of other Europeans would compete against a ****load of awful teams.

In fairness, the standard across European leagues is very high, and some of the eastern European teams gave established powers a scare in recent seasons. And there'd still be the likes of Inter, Real, Man Utd, Lyon, Bayern and so on it to provide big challenges.

Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool, Real Madrid, Atlecico, AC Milan, Juventus would compete in the UEFA cup.

I'm not sure which would be more interesting. It'd be pretty easy to argue the second competition would be more difficult to win. To win the first one, you'd probably have to beat two fantastic teams. To win the second one, you'd probably have to beat 3-4 very good teams.

It's a better situation than the one we currently have - one super-duper cup with every half-decent team on the continent, and then another stuffed with mediocrity. Mid-table teams shouldn't be in Europe. We should not reward mediocrity.

As a Liverpool fan who likely won't see his side win the league this side of a billionaire investor, I'd happily revert the Champions League to league-winners only, and see Liverpool duke it out in a proper UEFA Cup. And I'd welcome back the CWC and all!

Bubs101

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

Banning loans of U23 players

How in god's name would this help. In Italy for example you have clubs who have in essence survived of loan players from other clubs (Siena and Juve for example). How do Bolton not benefit from getting Wilshere and Weiss for free for 6 months, or Pompey with O'hara, or Blackburn with Di Santo. That helps small clubs

Edit: Actually, just a thought but if you did only have one team in the Champions league and then have the next 3 best in the Uefa Cup you could probably increase the overall TV revenue because interest in the Europa League would skyrocket and everyone would want to see the best team in Europe crowned not to mention every market would get a team

stovelid

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

For an interesting example of what can happen with only 1 CL space, look at Norway. Previously unheralded Rosenborg came to prominence in the late 80s/early 90s as the Norwegian Premier League came into existence. The combination of that and the CL money that came with their first qualification for the CL in 1995 helped them win 14 titles in a row..

In fairness, I assume that the Rosenborg model is similar to what would happen in LOI if a club got a windfall for breaking the CL group stages. The amounts involved would really set a club up but I don't think those amounts would be enough to seriously push a top-four/five English club that far ahead of the pack given the relative wealth and power of the clubs involved, and that's before you consider clubs like City and Chelsea who have serious benefactors.

The only way I could see real advantage in a single club monopolizing a single CL spot would be the ability to attract the best players from abroad. Clubs such as Liverpool who benefit from third and fourth place CL qualifications; have serious marquee players like Torres and who are based in unattractive locations (to foreign players) would be pretty hurt by not making the CL.

citytillidie

Premier league today said they are not looking into this anymore

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/eng_prem/8549867.stm

mike65

Good sense shocker.