Michel Platini

Originally Posted by Tony29.

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? Tony, the discussion as the thread itself remains relevant ofcourse

Originally Posted by rome1977

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 !

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by rome1977

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.

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.

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.

Do you think CL is bias against Eastern European and basically
anyone not in the G-14? Only a few years ago, wasn't the
CL Final FC Porto vs. Monaco?