Michel Platini [Archive] - AC Milan Forums

Tony29.

26-01-2007, 08:07

zlatanov

26-01-2007, 08:46

http://www.channel4.com/sport/football_italia/jan26j.html

He was elected as the new President of UEFA.
But i wanna open another discussion connected to his election. Before the elections he promised he would deduct a champions league spot from Spain Italy and England and give more chances to "smaller" football leagues champions.
Did he do it just to get the votes from those countries or you think he'll really do it ?
And if ESP, ITA and ENG really get only 3 CL spots, do you think it's better for the CL because teams like Dinamo Zagreb, Red Star, Levski etc will get more chances or it isn't good for the CL ?

Ideologically i think that's fair, but I'd rather see Roma taking on Liverpool than Vardar beating Tirana no matter where they ended up in their respective leagues.
I agree with you Tony - The teams from those leagues simply aren't stog enough to compete in the CL, at least at this point in time. With the current system, if a team does gain some momentum, they are given the chance to qualify in CL and if they are good enough, they will get there (like Levski, Steaua, Dynamo, etc).
There is no denying that even the best teams from the smaller championships aren't as good as the teams that make it to 4,5,and even 6th place in the bigger leagues ... not counting Serie A's currnet crisis moment due to calciopoli, of course.

But then again, with more teams from those smaller leagues participating in the CL, those teams will get a substantial financial injection from merely taking part in the tournament, and this, in time, would allow them to become stronger and stronger and rival other teams from the bigger leagues as the "gap" in quality will get smaller over time. So, If Platini really means what he said and wasn't just doing to get more votes, his plan does make sense and has a future in a sense.

Of course, this is how things could work in an ideal world. In the real world, however, we both know that the management/owners of the bigger clubs in Eastern Europe (and a big portion of the smaller leagues are right there) are closely connected with rather shady business dealings and there is a good chance that the extra money from participating in CL won't be invested into the club to make it stronger but will simply disappear without a trace into someone's pockets.

So, all in all, mabe a plan like his is worth a try but I would be surprised if it works and, should he go ahead and realizes it, I would expect things to get back as they are now ... especially when you consider that tv rating for CL would most probably fall down too.

P.S : And he's Juve legend :D
well, I hope he does keep fond memories of his years in Italy and will be a little less ignorant in treating the Italians like a bunch of cheats, although what's been going on in Serie A isn't exactly helping :rolleyes:

P.S 2 : Now if Juve wins the CL during his reign, all the conspiracy theorists will have their answers on How Come They Won It and Why did they win ?
:)
Don't worry, that's not gonna happen :diablo:

rahul.acm

26-01-2007, 08:52

His thought of cutting down the 4 teams to 3 is really useless and you have give the answer to it. It was just his tactics to get votes from the other federations by giving their teams a spot in the UCL.

The spots given to every country are perfect. These teams from east europe and scandinavia do not have that matches to play in their league or their cup. This will reduce the interest of the fans as not many people know Red Star, Dinamo Bucaresti...

Sepp Blatter had recently criticized Johansson to sway the voters in Platini's direction. They both were rivals for the Fifa presidency in the last elections. Johansson was also preparing for the next Fifa election. Blatter and Platini are friends forever.

I am always scared about the new presidents. They always want to make a point to the world and make wrong decisions.

Johansson was a big Barca/Ronaldinho fan and he hated Italy and Italian teams but wasn't he fair?

Gooner1886

26-01-2007, 09:11

Well he had the backing of Blatter, French teams must be happy from 2 to 3. Its a joke how can you compare other low classed leagues against the italian, spanish and the english league.

Tony29.

26-01-2007, 09:46

The spots given to every country are perfect. These teams from east europe and scandinavia do not have that matches to play in their league or their cup. This will reduce the interest of the fans as not many people know Red Star, Dinamo Bucaresti...

Yes, i do agree that the current UEFA countries standings look fair, and that way we have the best leagues on top which allows them to have 3-4 teams in CL.
But it's not like the "smaller" leagues don't stand a chance.

From next year Romania will have 1 team going directly into the CL, without qualifications, and they'll have the runner-up from their league playing Q matches. So, with the current system of counting points, where a win in UEFA Cup in 1st round against Partizani Tirana brings you the same points like the win in CL semifinal against Barcelona, it's not so hard for teams from some eastern european countries to gain many points, to be high on UEFA Country list, and to get the chance of playing in CL directly. ( if Steaua and Dinamo Bucaresti get 5 more wins in UEFA Cup this year, then they will take the 6th place in UEFA rankings from Portugal, and in season 2008/09 Romania will have 2 teams playing directly in CL and the third team will play Qualifications).

I wanna say that smaller teams are given their chance. It's not like the big teams are so much favoured. But apart from Romania, those teams from smaller leagues don't use their chances.
The question is why aren't they using their chances ?

I disagree with Gooner1886 and what he says.
It may be a shame to compare Red Star with Arsenal atm, but don't forget that 1991 wasn't so far away - the year when Red Star became European Champion. ( or 1986 when Steaua won Champions League/Cup)
And why did they become champions 15 years ago and they don't stand a chance now ?
Because back then all the champions were allowed to play in CL (Champions Cup) and they had money guaranteed for their participation. That way they weren't forced to sell their best players and they could make a team that was able to beat teams from Italy, England or Spain. They had Savicevic, Jugovic, Mihajlovic, Pancev, Prosinecki... They had the money to keep the best players from their country.
With the current situation even if Red Star makes a great team, they can't keep their players for more than 12 months because Inter or Manchester will buy them, Red Star can't compete with the giants, they can't make it to the CL, they don't get money, and they become weaker and weaker.
Dejan Stankovic, Nemanja Vidic, Nikola Zigic... they would all play for Red Star if UEFA didn't favour teams like Arsenal so much. And if they were in Red Star ( like they would have if we had the situation from 1991), then i guarantee you it wouldn't be a joke to compare them with Arsenal.

As a football fanatic, i'd really like to watch Arsenal-Roma, more than Levski-Red Star, but if Platini change smthg , maybe after 4-5 years Red Star and Levski will be able to compete with Arsenal, and Levski-Red Star will be as enjoyable and attractive as Arsenal-Roma match !

rahul.acm

26-01-2007, 10:30

Also, the reduction in the numbers = reduction in fans from asia (which is an explosive market for UCL) = lesser revenue to the UEFA = lesser amount of money given to the participants(clubs) = more abramowitches as the club owners.

Does anyone think abramovic is doing good for the sport by setting new and absurd wage caps as well as higher transfer fees.

Platini says that Football is a sport before a soap opera but without it being a soap, it would warn money.

zlatanov

26-01-2007, 10:35

my point exactly, Tony - with more money coming from CL participation, smaller teams will be given the chance to get stronger in time and will close that enourmous gap there is right now between G14 and everyone else.
It's not enough to just brand as "weak" when they simply aren't given the chance to change because to become "strong" in modern football, you need money ... at the same time, however, UEFA is denying you that money because you are "weak" ... it's one vicious circle for those teams.

At the same time, however, I also agree that smaller teams do have their chances even now - limited chances but still they have them.
As for why few of them take advantage of this, well, I think it again comes down to proper management of those clubs because most of them, whenever they produce a good player or two, they don't use them as a base to build on but are quick to sell them to other teams for quick return of the investment without any regard of a much bigger benefit in the long run ... and this is true even for teams with rich businessmen as their owners, who however seem to be lacking prospective of the real possibilites of the future and all the money/success they could make with a little more patience on their side.

Another problem also is the poorly managed youth programs, which, if well taken care of, are a source of quality and cheap players who could be used to constantly improve the level of quality within the teams rather than pay dearly for expensive foreign players ... Romania did exactly that - they took care of their youth sector and now are reaping the results of all that with Romanian clubs doing great in Europe and the Romanian NT also benefittng from that.

Reza

26-01-2007, 11:58

Strictly speaking I have no problem having a champions league with 'only' the champions participating. I don't see how a fourth placed team from a big (or small) country playing is necessarily a good thing except for a few million extra in some coffers and the fans of that team. If the champion of a minnow is allowed to play thats not as different as it is now, group stages already has many 4-0, 5-1 scores.

Warro Bantan

26-01-2007, 14:44

From theGuardian:

Discuss....

Platini elected Uefa president

Former French international takes over from Swede

Paolo Bandini
Friday January 26, 2007
Guardian Unlimited

Platini replaces Swede Lennart Johansson. Photograph: Volker Hartmann/AFP/Getty Images

Michel Platini has been elected the new president of Uefa, ending Lennart Johansson's 17-year tenure and striking a potentially major blow against Europe's biggest clubs in the process.
Platini, who has promised to limit the maximum number of clubs each country can have in the Champions League to three, won by 27 votes to 23, with two ballots deemed invalid. He will serve as Uefa president for the next four years and will also be a Fifa vice-president.

"This is just the beginning of an adventure," said Platini. "I'm happy today to be able to represent European football, I'm very moved and very happy. When I was a footballer, when you won a great victory you received a cup and went on a lap of honour. This is a great victory for me but I'm not going to do a lap of honour because now the work starts."

Platini has argued throughout his campaign that the presence of four teams from each of England, Spain, Germany and Italy restricts smaller countries' opportunities in the Champions League, stating that "there are not enough champions taking part in the competition". He has suggested that limiting their number could also help restore the prestige of the Uefa Cup, through the presence of bigger teams in that tournament.

The move undoubtedly helped his election hopes, winning support among smaller nations and in particular a number of the new Eastern European members that emerged from the break-up of the Soviet Union. It will be far less popular among the wealthy club elite, however, and it remains to be seen how G14 - a lobby group made up of 18 of Europe's most influential sides, many of whom rely heavily on Champions League television revenue - will react to any attempts to alter the current format of European club football.

Otherwise the candidates both ran with largely similar manifestos, identifying racism, agents, match-fixing and doping as problems that need solving, arguing that football should have greater control over its own governance - rather than be dictated to by European law - and promising to look after all levels of football, not just the professional game. Both also hinted that they would consider backing Scotland's proposals to extend the European Championship from 16 teams to 24, and Uefa confirmed this morning that it will conduct a feasibility study into the matter.

The result follows a tense election campaign which descended into bitterness in the days leading up to the vote. Several national associations have been angered by Johansson's refusal to step aside after such a long presidency, and senior figures in the organisation have already begun debating whether to set a maximum limit for future terms of office.

Fifa president Sepp Blatter also became involved when he publicly backed Platini's candidature, and Johansson was unhappy at his involvement. "I appreciate the Fifa president's words about what we have achieved in the 17 years of my presidency but I cannot appreciate it when the Fifa president interferes in an election process here in Uefa," blasted Johansson in his final address before the election. "It's not the Fifa president, it is you the Congress taking the decision."

But Platini was quick to extend the olive branch today, immediately inviting Johansson to become an honorary president. "This is a great victory," he continued. "But I have huge admiration for Lennart and I would ask for Lennart Johansson to become an honorary president of Uefa."

The Football Association refused to say who it planned to vote for in the election, fearing that it could harm their bid to host the 2018 World Cup if it publicly backed the losing candidate

Tony29.

26-01-2007, 14:50

Discuss....
http://www.milanmania.com/forums/showthread.php?p=412190#post412190
We allready started discussin' it Warro :)

Warro Bantan

26-01-2007, 15:00

Thanks Tony! I merged....

My 5 cents:

Well, in essence, this may be a good thing for the teams from weaker leagues, but to me, it may negatively impact the tournament, as there will be several blow outs, though, when one thinks about it, it also increases the chances for upsets...

I kind of like the idea, but for something like 2010...not this season, and surely not next season...

Stezagud

26-01-2007, 15:43

I prefer the current format, no doubt about it. The qualifiers and group stages weed out the weak and if the champions of Slovakia, Estonia etc are good enough to beat the 4th best Italian or English sides then they will get through, if they arent good enough then to let them through at others expense serves only to drop the overall quality.

The alternative i would happily accept would be a more even distribution of the CL TV revenue and prize money, if more of that filtered through to the weaker leagues then they would be able to hold onto more talent and build squads strong enough to progress further, which in turn would lead to increased exposure/prestige and the ablilty to buy even better players.

kastriot

26-01-2007, 16:09

http://www.channel4.com/sport/football_italia/jan26j.html

And if ESP, ITA and ENG really get only 3 CL spots, do you think it's better for the CL because teams like Dinamo Zagreb, Red Star, Levski etc will get more chances or it isn't good for the CL ?

:)

Oh my god, Tony just admitted that even he thinks that Dinamo Zagreb is better than Hajduk Split... and implying that Dinamo will be the Champion this year... :ilol: :ilol: :ilol:,couldnt get better than this???

Tony29.

26-01-2007, 20:01

Oh my god, Tony just admitted that even he thinks that Dinamo Zagreb is better than Hajduk Split... and implying that Dinamo will be the Champion this year... :ilol: :ilol: :ilol:,couldnt get better than this???
Err...i just mentioned last year's champions of CRO-SER-BUL leagues. Wasn't implying anything :)

I prefer the current format, no doubt about it. The qualifiers and group stages weed out the weak and if the champions of Slovakia, Estonia etc are good enough to beat the 4th best Italian or English sides then they will get through, if they arent good enough then to let them through at others expense serves only to drop the overall quality.

The alternative i would happily accept would be a more even distribution of the CL TV revenue and prize money, if more of that filtered through to the weaker leagues then they would be able to hold onto more talent and build squads strong enough to progress further, which in turn would lead to increased exposure/prestige and the ablilty to buy even better players.
Lets not push it with Estonian champion, they'll never make it anyway :) .
But champions of Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia and Serbia ( these leagues produce extra talents and top class players year after year) deserve the CL, but their financial situation won't allow them to be there every year. They have to sell 3-4 players every year in best european teams. If they participate in CL they will 100% be a real competition, if not to Milan or Chelsea, then certanly to Olimpiacos, Fenerbahce, Celtic.

I like your alternative thou. It's will be a great start.

I kind of like the idea, but for something like 2010...not this season, and surely not next season
Platini said only 3 teams from Italy will play CL next season !!!

I'm not telling the truth in 1 of the 3 replies i gave above :shameonme:

Vadim

26-01-2007, 20:26

I'm not telling the truth in 1 of the 3 replies i gave above :shameonme:

1st one or 3d one? :D

Kui

27-01-2007, 04:03

From the Guardian:
The Football Association refused to say who it planned to vote for in the election, fearing that it could harm their bid to host the 2018 World Cup if it publicly backed the losing candidate.

This says it all about the election of Platini. An election done in total secret and in fear of retribution dependant on their vote. Well what's done is done.
Thank You President Johansson for a fine job well done over the last 17 years.

Koeke

27-01-2007, 06:18

It's pretty obvious what's going one here, the posters from the small country are pro the new rules the others don't. (just like in the elections)

I'm also from a small country and 'we' voted for Platini aswell and I stand for that choice. The champions league is meant to be a league of champions not a leauge of the richest clubs and money makes money in this case, give the small clubs a chance to grow and they will get better, I agree the revenues will drop a bit but still I know for a fact that in Belgium a season for a 'top'club stands or falls with qualification for the champions leauge financially, their transferbudget and policy depends on wether they qualify late in summer, way to late to buy some new players and integrate them in a team, if they don't qualify most 'top'clubs tend to sell some players to have some more financial space, if clubs would be certain to play CL they can plan a long term vision better and so the diffrence between clubs will narrow down

Kui

27-01-2007, 08:36

You know Koeke... you have brought up some good points. However is it necessary for Platini to decrease the number of co-efficiencies the current leagues have? Is there a middle ground? It would show the depth of his leadership if he were to increase the number of teams into the CL. I find keeping the existing co-efficient value as is while expanding the number of teams much more appealing. For the big leagues, any team not winning their league championships should only gain entry by playing in the early rounds and qualify from there. Of course this is too easy of a solution and will indeed come across a few bumps in the road.

zlatanov

27-01-2007, 10:17

P.S : And he's Juve legend :D

well, keeping that in mind, I wouldn't be surprised if on the next meeting of the UEFA board Platini pushes for the first and second placed teams in Serie B to participate in next year's CL :guw:

Gooner1886

27-01-2007, 10:20

I dont like his "Homegrown" Plan.lol

kastriot

27-01-2007, 19:24

Err...i just mentioned last year's champions of CRO-SER-BUL leagues. Wasn't implying anything :)

Platini said only 3 teams from Italy will play CL next season !!!

I'm not telling the truth in 1 of the 3 replies i gave above :shameonme:

I know the you did`nt tell the truth about the first replay..but how dare you say that there will be only three available places for UCL next season in Milan forum.... :ilol: :ilol:

P.s Tony don`t forget that you might fight for the famous 4th place next season with Milan(champion),Roma,Inter getting the edge slightly before you
:D :guw:

Tony29.

15-02-2007, 13:38

PLATINI WANTS TO INTRODUE PENALTY REFEREES
------------------------------------------------------
Numbers are developing as the theme of Michel Platini's nascent reign as UEFA President. Having already caused ructions with the announcement that he wants a limit of three Champions League places per country, the Frenchman has now put forward a proposal for games to be officiated by three referees.

Instead of introducing video technology, UEFA intend to experiment with two additional penalty area 'referees' to assist the usual contingent of match officials. The proposal will be discussed in full at UEFA's annual general meeting next month.

"Two more officials would definitely help to clear up misunderstandings," a spokesman told The Daily Telegraph. "Platini does not want to break up the flow of games with video technology, but he is keen to see a new system and possible experiments."

-----------------------

:rollani: :rollani:

Warro Bantan

15-02-2007, 14:52

Tony29.

15-02-2007, 15:05

Stupid is, as stupid does...so, when this "box" ref, calls differently from say, the "main-field" ref...then what happens?

If the ball rebounds from the ref, and scores...what then?

Insanity....we should just go for video replays for certain incidents, and call it a day.

Two more self-important, football failures, aka clowns, will only make matters worse, or more funny, depending on your point of view.

Platini should have kept to playing, and not politicking.
Yup !
I also find this proposal funny, even insane.
We have 2 more people on the field ( If this happens, in stadiums like Delle Alpi it may happen to have more people on the field than on the stands :D) , we have 2 people with power to give the final decission if it was or wasn't a penalty ( like Warro already said, they may have different opinion) , and we have crazy guys like Ibra who'll be intentionally shooting many balls directly towards the ref behind the goal, if he won't give a penalty over him earlier in the game.

Jim_UK

15-02-2007, 15:26

aswell as the 2 penalty box refs we'll also have another 2 linesman each patrolling one side on each half, making 7 officials on the field. Then we'll have another 2 4th officials, each one keeping check on the managers and making sure they don't step outside those boxes ... ooops, sorry technical areas. Then the existing 4th official just continues with substitution duties. There'll be another 2 officials who are responsible for time-keeping and finally 8 officials (4 at each end) to stop goal celebrations. So all in all that's 20 in total.

I think that should just about cover it for Platini :rollani:

zlatanov

15-02-2007, 15:31

I don;t think the idea is that bad ... probably not the best i.e. could be coupled with video evidence for certain moments like "phantom" goals and PKs, but it's not a total bust either, I think.

For me, American football is the one team sport where the influence of the refs is brought to a minimum and over there they again have a number of refs disperced all over the field with one of them being the main referee.

I am not sure whose call gets precedence - probably that of the ref who was closest to the situation in question (?) - but it's completely natural given that there are several dif refs on the field to end up in a situation where one of them has seen a foul, while the other hasn't signaled anything ... and this is when the refs get together for a quick clarification and the main ref makes the decision ... at least that's my take on American Footbal refereeing but i am not much of a fan, so probably someone whose into AF would have a better idea what the regulations are.

Still, even with all those refs on the field, in AF they have video evidence - each team can challange the refs decision 3 times/game, I think - and also, certain decisive and controversial situations are being reviewed by non-field referees, who are watching replays on TV monitors somewhere in the VIP areas of the stands ... and if they suspect that there is something unclear, they can too review a play even if none of the teams is challanging the decision made by the main ref on the field.

So, at least for some cases - like PKs, RC, phantom goals - maybe European football could learn from their US colleagues.

Warro Bantan

15-02-2007, 15:46

As for this new ruling re celebrations...this is disingenious to the max...I mean, if a goal being scored for a spectator, can induce feelings greater in intensity than an orgasm, then what does a player feel when scoring?

Why should celebrations be monitored? Ok, the shirt thing, I can barely accept, but I cant mock opposing supporters with a hand to the ear? That takes much of the fun out of scoring...and if I feel like dancing after I score...must I not?

I am wondering why these old fogeys, who can no longer kick a ball, want to take the fun out of our games..what, eh? Oh.

Warro Bantan

15-02-2007, 15:50

I don;t think the idea is that bad ... probably not the best i.e. could be coupled with video evidence for certain moments like "phantom" goals and PKs, but it's not a total bust either, I think.

For me, American football is the one team sport where the influence of the refs is brought to a minimum and over there they again have a number of refs disperced all over the field with one of them being the main referee.......Still, even with all those refs on the field, in AF they have video evidence - each team can challange the refs decision 3 times/game, I think - and also, certain decisive and controversial situations are being reviewed by non-field referees, who are watching replays on TV monitors somewhere in the VIP areas of the stands ... and if they suspect that there is something unclear, they can too review a play even if none of the teams is challanging the decision made by the main ref on the field.

So, at least for some cases - like PKs, RC, phantom goals - maybe European football could learn from their US colleagues.

The big difference, that you have so skillfully avoided Zlatster, is that in AF (like the abbreviation, so I am stealing it :D ) there is like, 5 seconds of action, then the game stops for another couple of minutes, while they move the measuring tape, the teams huddle etc. So, while some of ur points are valid, the comparison itself is a bit..how do I say this...off?

Video replay is what I think should be used. End of story.

zlatanov

15-02-2007, 16:05

The big difference, that you have so skillfully avoided Zlatster, is that in AF (like the abbreviation, so I am stealing it :D ) there is like, 5 seconds of action, then the game stops for another couple of minutes, while they move the measuring tape, the teams huddle etc. So, while some of ur points are valid, the comparison itself is a bit..how do I say this...off?

Video replay is what I think should be used. End of story.
I don't see your point Warro ... AF is a slow game not because the refs make it slow but the rules of the game itself - measuring field position, once a player is down by contact (and this sport is all about contact), the play stops etc, etc.

In european football, when a ref gives a PK or a RC or decides to allow a non-existent gaol, etc, in the time players spend on arguing with the ref and linesman, shoving one another etc etc, it will be more than enough for 2-3 refs to have a short consultation on what each one of them saw in that situation ... i am not talking about them getting together and dicussing this for several minutes, but just a gesture or two and everything will cleared up in about 20-30 sec, often even less.

Given how much time is lost nowadays in players arguing with the refs and questioning their dicisions, introducing a system similar to that of AF - several refs as well as video evidence available for the MOST IMPORTANT moments in a game (that's about 4-5 questionable PK or phantom goals situations per game on average) - will actually speed up the game, not slow it down once the refs get used to the new rules and start working in synch with one another.

In time, it will most probably also give both fans and players more confidence in the referees' decisions - and this will lead to less time being wasted on players heatedly questioning those decisions - because the chance of 2-3 people, helped with video evidence on ocassion, getting it wrong is much smaller than what it is today.

Warro Bantan

15-02-2007, 16:09

And the point that I was making, is not about the time taken by the refs, but that because the game stops so much, its ok for several refs to debate calls etc. while the play is halted for field position change etc.

In football, which is supposed to be all action (until the ball goes outside, or there is an infraction) such debates would be a definate time waster.

But u do make a good point at the end...as usual :D

zlatanov

15-02-2007, 16:19

And the point that I was making, is not about the time taken by the refs, but that because the game stops so much, its ok for several refs to debate calls etc. while the play is halted for field position change etc.

OK, I see your point now ... but again as I tried to explain above, these "discussions" don't need to take much time and in the worst case, they will eat up virtually the same amout of time that currently players waste on arguing with refs and such i.e. these "discussions" could well be incorporated into the natural flow of the game without negatively influencing it.
in the end of the day, european football only looks to be more dynamic - if you look at the stats after a game, you will see that, out of the 90-100 min the game lasted (injury time including), less than 50% of that is actual playing time ... so plenty of time for the refs to discuss, me thinks :D

Jim_UK

15-02-2007, 16:25

if there were 2 or 3 people viewing the video evidence, that would make decisions faster still ... plus it would only need to be viewed on decisions that stop the game anyway. Something like an incorrect off-side call can't be disputed, it's not like you can reposition all the players like snooker balls and then say 'play on' :D

Warro Bantan

16-02-2007, 09:51

Again Zlat, I have to side with Jimster here...and if we develop and implement the similar technology to that used say in tennis, where computer generated lines can give, within seconds, a definitive as to an offside, ball over the goal line, etc..

Video evidence, with the three officials on or alongside the pitch, is fine for me.

zlatanov

16-02-2007, 10:21

I think reviewing video evidence for PKs, simulations in the PA, etc would slow the game more than just 2-3 refs doing what the NFL refs do - have a 10 sec discussion and the decision is made.
I also would like to see video evidence being made part of the game but I would think that if video evidence is intruduced in football, at least at first, it would be for reviewing the so called "phantom" goals when it is not clear if the ball crossed the line or not.

Warro Bantan

14-03-2007, 14:27

Monsieur Platini wants a play off for UEFA places....this idea at least is palatable, and give us something to look forward to, for the 4th placers to play each other:

http://football.guardian.co.uk/breakingnews/feedstory/0,,-6480125,00.html

While I dislike giving up the 4th qualifying spot as it stands, I doint mind this recent revision (or plan thereto).

Jim_UK

14-03-2007, 14:41

It would be alot simpler if they just did away with all the 'CL qualifying' nonsense. Allocate 3 spots to the top leagues and then a hierarchical allocation to the other leagues and that's it. Finish below those places and you get put in the Uefa Cup.

It would cut out alot of needless matches and beef up the Uefa Cup in terms of quality. I'd rather see teams from other leagues in the CL than just a prelude to a European league with the usual teams in it.

Warro Bantan

14-03-2007, 14:47

But Jim, "needless" matches are what help to drive revenue, the pillar of European football...its all about the money...more matches, more revenue..hence Platini´s decision to have these "playoff" matches...I can picture it now....in 2K9:

Arsenal (EPL 4th place) vs Roma (Serie A 4th place)
Sevilla (La Liga 4th place) vs Lille (Ligue Un 4th place)

Sure beats: Arsenal vs Sparta Prague!

Jim_UK

14-03-2007, 15:01

I hear you WB and i know that all UEFA want to see are the Benjamins rolling in. But it was my hope Platini would manage UEFA the way he played football, with grace, skill and a love for the game.

Can't see it happening though.

Warro Bantan

14-03-2007, 15:03

Platini the politician < Platini the baller....BIGTIME!!

Tony29.

07-05-2007, 12:34

Champions Nuovo formato sarà esaminato il 27 settembre

19:01 del 07 maggio

Il nuovo formato della Champions League sarà
esaminato dall'esecutivo della Uefa il prossimo 27 settembre. Ad annunciarlo è il presidente Michel Platini, in un'intervista a 'Kicker'. "È un argomento delicato. Ho bisogno di parlarne con la commissione strategica, con l'esecutivo, con i club e con alcune persone", dice Platini. Il progetto prevede un maggior coinvolgimento delle nazioni di secondo piano. "Secondo la mia filosofia - spiega -, le squadre che vincono piccoli campionati dovrebbero avere la precedenza rispetto a quelle che finiscono al quarto posto in un grande torneo". In cantiere c'è anche la riforma della Coppa Uefa. "Sarà un torneo al quale i club vorranno partecipare. Dal 2009 ci saranno 12 gruppi formati da 4 squadre".

----------------------------------
In short : On 27 September UEFA will decide about the new format of the Champions league.
No need to worry too much :)
Platini suggests champions from the "smaller" leagues to be given more chances to experience CL group stages.
That's why he plans , from 2009, CL to have 12 ( instead of current 8) groups consisted of 4 teams.
It means we'll have 16 more teams participating in CL groups stages.
The "big" leagues , like EPL, Serie A and La Liga, will still have 4 representatives, but this way even champions of Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Croatia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Macedonia etc. will have almost a guaranteed spot in champions league !

What do you think ? Good or bad ?

Reza

07-05-2007, 12:40

I am for giving more chances to smaller countries, if it helps them grow with a slice of the CL pie then good. I am not worried about many 5-0 matches either, if there are more blowouts so be it. I was never against the original 3 team idea that Platini was campaigning about either. When they got rid of the cup winners cup they just devalued everything else in favour of the CL, so now let more teams have a shot at a few CL games :)

Warro Bantan

07-05-2007, 14:10

Well, the "big countries" like Italy etc, wont "lose" a spot, so, I am all for it...while it allows some of the "lesser lights" a chance at footballs "biggest stage"...so...cool with me.

Go ahead Platini, you have my permission! :D

Jim_UK

07-05-2007, 14:12

Tony29.

07-05-2007, 14:36

I feel the same as Prez Rez and as i've already mentioned in this thread, i'm all for teams from 'lesser' leagues getting an opportunity. However, this idea of 48 teams taking part in the CL just seems ridiculous.

Plus i've been thinking (though not in depth) about how it could work. 12 groups of 4, so i would guess if the top 2 still go through it would leave 24 teams. Then what? If you work 24 down you don't get the right numbers to leave 2 teams at the end (i.e. Last 24, Last 12, Last 6, Last 3?). So will they reintroduce a second group stage and make the football calender even more congested?

Like i said, i've not given it alot of thought so maybe i'm missing something glaringly obvious, but i don't see how it can work right now :dontkn:

8-9 years ago there were 6 groups in CL ( seasons 97/98 and 98/99) and only 8 teams went to the 1/4 - the winners of all 6 groups and the two best 2nd placed teams. ( ManUtd won the 1999 CL and they hardly passed the group stages, as one of the 2 best 2nd placed teams.)
I guess that's how this will work.
The winners of all 12 groups + the best four 2nd placed.

It looks strange now but it's actually good because 2nd placed teams won't just give up and play for nothing if they secure the qualification after round 4 and round 5.

One negative aspect is the quality of the groups. The best teams will hardly find themselves in a position to play against eachother in group stages ( like Barca-Chelsea this year) because all of them will be 1st seeded. So, if this suggestion by Platini passes and this is really how CL 2009/10 will look, then don't expect some top football until February.

Tony29.

07-05-2007, 15:08

Ok, who's gonna kill me for being stupid ?

Platini wasn't talking about Champions league, he was talking about UEFA cup and making it a competition with 12 groups consisted of 4 teams ( now there are 8 groups with 5 teams)

About CL he still stands behind what he was saying pre-election. He still thinks champions of smaller leagues should have advanatge over 4th placed teams in big leagues !

Reza

07-05-2007, 15:12

One negative aspect is the quality of the groups. The best teams will hardly find themselves in a position to play against eachother in group stages ( like Barca-Chelsea this year) because all of them will be 1st seeded. So, if this suggestion by Platini passes and this is really how CL 2009/10 will look, then don't expect some top football until February.

One can't expect too much from a competition that is champions league in name only, because obviously in today's world of G14 etc. the only way to keep the participants low enough for an early Barca-Chelsea is the current situation.

EDIT:
Should I edit my post? :D Tony, the discussion as the thread itself remains relevant ofcourse

Tony29.

08-05-2007, 10:11

I don't much like the Champions League format. I much prefer the old European Cup, where the various national league winners play two-legged ties (home and away) in a knock out style competition.

The Champions League is merely a commercial vehicle. Modern football depresses me, and for me isn't shade on football from decades ago.

Our 2005 CL winning team couldn't hold a candle to the late 70s/early 80s team of Souness/Case/McDermott/Dalglish, etc.

Football used to be about slowly building a tight cohesive team. Nowadays, with all the money in the hands of a few clubs, it is all about bringing in the latest superstars.

I'm probably an old fogey in my thinking.

This is from another thread but i'm moving the discussion here cause i think this is the place where the discussion should take place.

The irony of the name "Champions league" has been discussed a lot, everywhere, and Milanmania ain't no exception. People here talked about it.
It's really funny to see Milan and Liverpool playing in champions league final when last year they were champions of.........what ?

But eventhough Milan and Pool didn't deserve to play CL ( if we accept the old rules) i'm totally against CL to become what it was before 1996 ( when Italy and Germany gave 2 teams) , and i would still like this league to be consisted of the best teams in Europe, no matter if 3 or 4 of them come from the same country.

What i was thinking is how to make the name "Champions League" acceptable.
1. Not only champions participate
2. It's not actually a league
So, not only "champions" is wrong but also "league" is wrong word to be used for the current format.

I remember i once read one suggestion and i kinda liked it, although it has it's own negativities.
The suggestion was smthg like this :
National leagues to have maximum 14 teams , while qualification rounds in CL ( in August) to give us 16 teams who'll also be organized in a league.
That way teams will have to play 26 rounds in their domestic leagues and 30 rounds in champions league.
It's a total of 56 matches and it's not much more than the 51 matches Milan had to play this year only in serie A and CL.

I don't wanna see anymore some teams to calculate during the year and then to win CL.
That's the case with both Milan (this year) and Pool ( in last 3 years), i hope you'll agree.
Milan played very bad untill March and the good form in only 3 months of the year may bring the CL trophy to Milano, while ManUtd played perfect for most of the year and their drop of form in last month will cost them the trophy
I think it would be much more fair if the best and most consistant team in Europe become the european champion.
This format will provide exactly that.

But i was thinking and i think there is one negative aspect with this format. What about the teams that will lose every chance to win CL after 20th round ? What will they play for in the last 10 rounds of the CL ? Unless UEFA gives big money for every win or every draw, then these teams will have nothing to play for.

Dunno, i don't think smthg like this will pass, but it's a good base for further development of Champions League, and not only it will bring top class football week after week but it will be more fair way to get the overall champions of Europe !

rome1977

08-05-2007, 10:28

interesting idea, Tony - re a national 14 team league that runs in parallel with a 16 team European Champions League.

The problem is that in england (and other countries) there are other competititons too e.g. the FA Cup, and the League Cup. So it wouldn't be merely a matter of a club playing 26 games domestically and a further 30 in europe.

I think the top clubs have far too much power (and money). I don't like the G14 club.

My first love is to football. And I don't see the massive money from Sky and the Champions League format enhancing the game. It's merely taking massive money out of fans' pockets, and putting it into players' pockets (and club owners).

I cancelled my long-time satellite soccer package 3 years ago. I just could not justify the cost.

Tony29.

08-05-2007, 10:41

Actually this idea has far too many holes and it will never succeed. Not only teams in England have to play the cup but there's also huge advantage for some teams that won't have to play CL , because they have 30 matches less than the others.
f.e if Milan plays CL and Inter doesn't, then Inter will have to play only 26 serie A matches and few more cup matches. That's a huge difference and Inter will enter the serie A with huge advantage over the other Italians who play CL.

What's interesting about this idea is the fact that the best and most consistant team during the year will become a champion, and i think UEFA must find a solution how to make that happen because, obviously, with this current format , the champion becomes the best team from March to May.
With the current format you're allowed to have bad September, October....January , but you're not allowed to have bad April.

rome1977

08-05-2007, 10:46

Tony29.

08-05-2007, 10:59

I am probably old fashioned in my thinking, Tony.

But rather than get more Europeanised, I prefer to go back to having more focus on our own national leagues.

European football should be the icing on the cake. In modern times, european CL football is the main course meal for the top teams......and the massive money is poisoning national leagues.

Other clubs in england do not have any chance now of winning the premiership - or even of finishing in the top 4. And when there is no competition in our domestic leagues, thnen fans start to lose interest. The result becomes as predictable as a bull-fight. :(

Yeah, i understand you. I'm pretty old ( fashioned) also and i spent my childhood and teen years in a country and league that was very competitive in the past but not anymore. I'd like to experience strong domestic league again and i'd like teams from "smaller" leagues to be strong again.
And also, the old Champions Cup can still be very interesting with the likes of Milan ( or Juve or Inter) , Liverpool ( or Chelsea, ManU or maybe even teams like New Castle), Real Madrid, Bayern, Lyon, strong Dinamo Kyiv, strong Red Star, strong Steaua, strong Anderlecht etc...competing for the big trophy, plus the domestic leagues will get more interest and we'll have some 7-10 teams able to win the domestic league because money'll be spread more or less equaly.

But i somehow got used to this new Champions League and i'll find it hard to watch CL with Barca but without Real. And since i don't see UEFA bringing back the old Champions cup, then i'd at least like to see some changes, like the ones i talked about in my posts above.

Warro Bantan

08-05-2007, 11:15

Well rome1977, at the risk of sounding disingenious, bullfights sometimes end up with the bull winning...but indeed, too often it is the bull that is eaten...

Kaiserslautern winning the Bundesliga title the same year of (or year after?) promotion from the lower division is a perfect example....prob wouldnt happen again in 1000 years...but it did happen.

With Platini seeking to have a greater depth in terms of teams in the competition proper, it will go some ways to ensure that the "lesser lights" of europe get some much needed cash to develop players, invest in facilities, as well as attract some "big" or maybe in reality some "promising" names with their UCL cash.

The mid-table teams, if they do well enough in the UEFA Cup, will have that much more money to re-invest in their operations, to make a stronger challenge for the UCL qualifying places...so in truth, its not all doom and gloom....there is some hope that the mid-table teams can improve...and ultimately compete with the top 3 or 4.

As for some teams in England not having a chance....does Getafe in Spain ever have a realistic chance of winning La Liga? Siena in Serie A? Nuremberg in the Bundesliga?

There will always be the small, newly promoted or otherwise basement or mid-table clubs that never, ever will challenge for the league, but yet, if 1 point were separating Chelsea and Man U come the pending league fixture (tomorrow I believe?), all of England, if not the world, would be tuned in to watch what would/could be the title decider...both fan and neutral alike would be glued to the tv sets.

So, I cant say I agree with your point about fans losing interest...though I understand where you are coming from...but as money makes in increasing impact on football, I dont see much changing in essence, but there is always hope of a team overachieving, like Sevilla for example have done for what, 2 seasons in a row now, and look set for a UCL spot, for the first in the club´s history I believe...this after reaching the UEFA Cup final twice in 2 years.

Reza

24-08-2007, 14:23

A follow up :)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/6961888.stm
See the parts I emphasized, so it would presumably be adopted by Serie A and others too?
----

Platini wants Euro place for Cup

Platini wanted to limit qualifying places per country to three
Uefa president Michel Platini is set to propose a shake-up of Champions League qualification in England by handing a place to the FA Cup winners.

Under new proposals, the Cup winners - rather than the team that finishes fourth in the Premier League - would go into Europe's elite cup competition.

It comes after Platini's plan to reduce qualification spots for any one country from four to three was rejected.

However, this proposal could be viewed as a compromise.

The plans will be unveiled by Platini next week, before the group stage of the Champions League gets underway.

And BBC Sport understands such a proposal would receive the support of the Football Association, who would be keen to increase the value of the FA Cup.

The plans would also be backed by the Italian FA, though Uefa's new strategic forum, made up of clubs, leagues and players unions, would be less favourably inclined suggesting there would be a lot of debate to come.

Suggestions that it would help break the monopoly of Champions League qualification among England's 'top four' appear unfounded, however, with one of Chelsea, Manchester United, Arsenal and Liverpool winning all but two of the last 19 FA Cup competitions.