Jump to content
By fans, for fans. By fans, for fans. By fans, for fans.

We're crap but we're real big like, so, can we come in

Rory Fitzgerald
 Share

Recommended Posts

Rory Fitzgerald

Rory Fitzgerald

Posted
Posted

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/29572414

 

BiYJMn5IIAA1zkk.jpg

 

AC Milan director Umberto Gandini believes Champions League wildcards should be introduced to ensure some of Europe's biggest clubs do not miss out.

 

Currently, the Premier League top three qualify automatically, with the side in fourth entering the play-off round.

In Italy, the top two go straight into the Champions League, with third going into the play-offs.

 

"I think we have to look at ways of improving the Champions League," Gandini told BBC World Service.

"I would like to see opportunities for wildcards or different routes for clubs who have the ability, the prestige or the size to compete in the Champions League."

 

However Uefa general secretary Gianni Infantino said this week that wildcards would never happen.

 

Manchester United and AC Milan, past winners of the Champions League, are not competing in this season's competition after finishing seventh and eighth in their respective leagues.

 

"Look at Italy for example, every year you have two teams qualifying directly and one to the play-offs, but you have Juventus, Milan, Inter, Roma, Napoli, Fiorentina and Lazio trying to play for the top three spots" Gandini said.

"In England now you have Manchester United, Manchester City, Chelsea, Arsenal, Tottenham and Liverpool trying to qualify for the top four".

"Every year one two or three miss out and either play in the Europa League or have to go without European football."

 

Gandini said that revenue from European football is too important for clubs, adding: "Today we play a competition with 32 clubs, every season you have a fantastic run by underdogs who, say, get to the quarter finals. This is good for football".

"On the other hand there are more and more important clubs - important because of history and size - that miss out."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ombudsam

Ombudsam

Posted
Posted

Nah. Competition isn't between champions any more so it may as well at least be between the best.

But don't you think that should be determined by actual performance. If a big club f***s up then they are the last people that should be given a helping hand

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Flanders

Flanders

Posted
Posted

It's based on how well you did in the previous league season, that will do for criteria

Sure but it's a hell of a lot harder to finish in the qualifier spot in our league than any others. It's not a champions league anyway.

 

Just how would that work though if UEFA did try to tease it out - take the top 10 teams by UEFA co-efficient that didnt make it and draw out 2 from a pot ?

Put them all in or give 6 to teams from England, Spain, Italy etc why is four places an acceptable amount? When the competition moved beyond league winners it became about viewing figures and generating revenue.

It's a great contest but it could be even better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rory Fitzgerald

Rory Fitzgerald

Posted
  • Author
Posted

 

Put them all in or give 6 to teams from England, Spain, Italy etc why is four places an acceptable amount? When the competition moved beyond league winners it became about viewing figures and generating revenue.

It's a great contest but it could be even better.

 

The issue was smaller countries/teams being left behind so they split the qualifying up. The weak side and the strong side.

 

4 from England, Germany, Spain, 3 from Italy. Thats 15 teams from the 4 strongest nations in a 32 team competition.

 

That leaves 17 spots for Portugal, France, Holland, Turkey, Russia, Czech Rep, Croatia, Sweden etc etc etc. There needs to be places for other nations.

 

I know this is not what you are suggesting at all but if UEFA picked the top 32 teams based on the co-efficients then Spurs (17) and Utd (7) would be in would be in and Liverpool (43) and Roma wouldnt (51).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Flanders

Flanders

Posted
Posted

The issue was smaller countries/teams being left behind so they split the qualifying up. The weak side and the strong side.

 

4 from England, Germany, Spain, 3 from Italy. Thats 15 teams from the 4 strongest nations in a 32 team competition.

 

That leaves 17 spots for Portugal, France, Holland, Turkey, Russia, Czech Rep, Croatia, Sweden etc etc etc. There needs to be places for other nations.

 

I know this is not what you are suggesting at all but if UEFA picked the top 32 teams based on the co-efficients then Spurs (17) and Utd (7) would be in would be in and Liverpool (43) and Roma wouldnt (51).

32 teams in the group stage but more than double that start the competition including, this year, the champions of Gibraltar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rimbeux

Rimbeux

Posted
Posted

Sure but it's a hell of a lot harder to finish in the qualifier spot in our league than any others. It's not a champions league anyway.

.

 

So what if it's harder, there are more places for the strongest leagues. The competition is suffering for not having the most popular clubs in it every season, there's little logic to pushing it in a direction that further concentrates the money to be made in particular leagues and clubs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Flanders

Flanders

Posted
Posted

But thats the important part really, no-ones very much interested in having access to the qualifiers if they dont have a chance of getting in.

They will have a chance of getting in if they have access to the qualifiers. At the moment only the 4th place side in England does but i see no reason why 4-6th placed sides can't qualifying. Why 3+1, why not 3+3?

 

The losers of the qualifiers then cascade into the Europa league. It'll probably be an even poorer competition than it is now with more teams like Qarabag and Lokeren making the numbers because teams such as Inter, Tottenham and Sevilla will have had a chance to qualify for the Champions league. Supporters will still watch the Europa just not many neutrals.

 

So what if it's harder, there are more places for the strongest leagues. The competition is suffering for not having the most popular clubs in it every season, there's little logic to pushing it in a direction that further concentrates the money to be made in particular leagues and clubs.

Fine, i disagree.

 

I see no reason why the magic number has to be 4 for England, it isn't a defining number. Some committee decided it - it's not a sporting reason otherwise it would be the champions. I just want to see the best teams in that competition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rimbeux

Rimbeux

Posted
Posted

They will have a chance of getting in if they have access to the qualifiers. At the moment only the 4th place side in England does but i see no reason why 4-6th placed sides can't qualifying. Why 3+1, why not 3+3?

 

The losers of the qualifiers then cascade into the Europa league. It'll probably be an even poorer competition than it is now with more teams like Qarabag and Lokeren making the numbers because teams such as Inter, Tottenham and Sevilla will have had a chance to qualify for the Champions league. Supporters will still watch the Europa just not many neutrals.

 

 

Fine, i disagree.

 

I see no reason why the magic number has to be 4 for England, it isn't a defining number. Some committee decided it - it's not a sporting reason otherwise it would be the champions. I just want to see the best teams in that competition.

 

 

it's 4 because any more means other leagues missing out, and the expansion over 20 years has been balanced between representing as many UEFA leagues as possible and having the strongest teams in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Flanders

Flanders

Posted
Posted (edited)

it's 4 because any more means other leagues missing out, and the expansion over 20 years has been balanced between representing as many UEFA leagues as possible and having the strongest teams in it.

The representatives of San Marino, Gibraltar and Andorra were out of the competition early in July - early enough to suggest they were never actually in it at all!

 

Putting them into the Europa and giving those three places to the professional leagues would be a good start and common sense. Or just give extra places and play more qualifiers, 77 teams go into the champions league so it isn't going to unbalance the draw.

Edited by Flanders
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rimbeux

Rimbeux

Posted
Posted

The representatives of San Marino, Gibraltar and Andorra were out of the competition early in July - early enough to suggest they were never actually in it at all!

 

Putting them into the Europa and giving those three places to the professional leagues would be a good start and common sense. Or just give extra places and play more qualifiers, 77 teams go into the champions league so it isn't going to unbalance the draw.

 

 

The strongest leagues are already have overrepresentation in the group stages, there have been moves to limit it by making the 3rd/4th place teams play off against each other. The idea being to keep the opportunity as wide as possible and not just have a six league competition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Flanders

Flanders

Posted
Posted

The strongest leagues are already have overrepresentation in the group stages, there have been moves to limit it by making the 3rd/4th place teams play off against each other. The idea being to keep the opportunity as wide as possible and not just have a six league competition.

I see that but I'd rather watch the 'six league competition' albeit I'd make it a big broader than that and put Russian, Dutch and Turkish teams in with the obvious six. Maybe a few others too but definitely not all 54 nations or whatever it is these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rimbeux

Rimbeux

Posted
Posted

I see that but I'd rather watch the 'six league competition' albeit I'd make it a big broader than that and put Russian, Dutch and Turkish teams in with the obvious six. Maybe a few others too but definitely not all 54 nations or whatever it is these days.

 

 

I get what you want to see, and in terms of quality I might agree with you, but I like variety and I also don't think concentrating the money and players in fewer teams is going to be great long term, and UEFA have a responsibility to all their member nations when it comes down to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Home

Notifications

PMs
×
×
  • Create New...