Football League Play-offs

[Calvin Plummer]

Do the best teams in Europe actually win it though?

Put aside the money aspect, because that is a separate argument and I agree with you there, and on your closed shop comment.

But from a purely sporting point of view, do you agree that generally the best teams in Europe in any given year win?

I understand the self perpetuating part of it, but just put that aside a moment

Why put it aside? Given that teams are more or less guaranteed entry each season, guaranteed to qualify from their groups it's simply 7 games to get through to be champions.

You think that's harder than to win the league and then the European Cup on top? Ok.

 

[Pope John XXIII]

Yes but count how many of those sides were actually reigning champions of their league when they won.

That’s the whole point. The so called ‘Champions League’ is nothing of the sort unless leagues are now giving out winners medals for finishing fourth.

The format is all about maximising money for UEFA and the clubs involved and as has been previously mentioned if UEFA hadn’t done it, there was the very real threat of the top clubs forming a break away European Super League.

The threat is still very much there because the big guns want pretty much guaranteed European football every season for the money it brings. It has even been mooted to allow big European clubs to qualify based on past history if they can’t qualify through the league.

Parasitic or symbiotic, the relationship between UEFA and the clubs boils down purely to financial self interest. Nothing to do with what the fans want and certainly nothing to do with watching the Champions of Europe compete against each other.

Reigning champions isn't especially relevant. Just because a team was champions one year doesn't mean they will be their country's best team a season later while they are competing in the European Cup. We weren't

And on the flip side you can argue that in some ways the expanded format has proved a leveler in an age where vast money was pouring into the game anyway.

Bayern have just been champions for a seventh year in a row. Imagine if they were the only German team that could benefit from CL money?

 

[Pope John XXIII]

Why put it aside? Given that teams are more or less guaranteed entry each season, guaranteed to qualify from their groups it's simply 7 games to get through to be champions.

You think that's harder than to win the league and then the European Cup on top? Ok.

Clubs are not guaranteed any of those things. Ask Arsenal and Milan.

The majority of money for those big clubs comes from all sorts of sources. I don't think PSG's Neymar fee came from CL money did it?

If you want to rail against money, fine. But there are bigger targets than the CL, they just aren't as easy to scapegoat

 

[Basha73]

Reigning champions isn't especially relevant. Just because a team was champions one year doesn't mean they will be their country's best team a season later while they are competing in the European Cup. We weren't

And on the flip side you can argue that in some ways the expanded format has proved a leveler in an age where vast money was pouring into the game anyway.

Bayern have just been champions for a seventh year in a row. Imagine if they were the only German team that could benefit from CL money?

No we weren’t but we had earned the right to play in what is now the Champions League by being Champions.

And how can you argue it has been a leveller? How many teams enter the Champions League every year? 32 in the group stages alone, without qualifiers.

I listed 7 teams that I knew had won it this century, 8 including Porto. How is that a leveller?

Teams are seeded at the group stage to practically guarantee the same teams qualifying unless there is a big upset. Ajax were this year’s wild card but with seeding should never have got anywhere near. How many other sides that qualified from the group stages could you consider a surprise?

Germany is an interesting example because the teams below Bayern are inconsistent as a rule but look at Italy, Spain, England and then smaller countries like Portugal, Scotland, Holland, France and Belgium... You could guess 90% of the teams qualifying for Europe each season and they are all benefitting from European prize money season in, season out.

Blame UEFA or blame the clubs but money rules in football these days.

 

[Calvin Plummer]

Clubs are not guaranteed any of those things. Ask Arsenal and Milan.

The majority of money for those big clubs comes from all sorts of sources. I don't think PSG's Neymar fee came from CL money did it?

If you want to rail against money, fine. But there are bigger targets than the CL, they just aren't as easy to scapegoat

Hello goal posts, goodbye goal posts.

 

[Basha73]

In other news it’s being reported that Boro are planning to sue Derby over Profitability and Sustainability breaches.

Not sure how that would work. Surely it’s down to the EFL to investigate...

 

[mao tse tung]

Reigning champions isn't especially relevant. Just because a team was champions one year doesn't mean they will be their country's best team a season later while they are competing in the European Cup. We weren't

And on the flip side you can argue that in some ways the expanded format has proved a leveler in an age where vast money was pouring into the game anyway.

Bayern have just been champions for a seventh year in a row. Imagine if they were the only German team that could benefit from CL money?

Surely you could extend that to say finishing in the top four isnt especially relevant because last seasons best four clubs are not bound to be this seasons best four, particularly now there are six clubs fighting for four places.

The fact remains, winning your own league is a monumental feat in its self; a competition based on a league winning criteria would be far smaller than what you currently have but much higher in quality.

The original format wasnt broke; UEFA caved in to avoid a league being formed.

 

[Pope John XXIII]

No we weren’t but we had earned the right to play in what is now the Champions League by being Champions.

And how can you argue it has been a leveller? How many teams enter the Champions League every year? 32 in the group stages alone, without qualifiers.

I listed 7 teams that I knew had won it this century, 8 including Porto. How is that a leveller?

Teams are seeded at the group stage to practically guarantee the same teams qualifying unless there is a big upset. Ajax were this year’s wild card but with seeding should never have got anywhere near. How many other sides that qualified from the group stages could you consider a surprise?

Germany is an interesting example because the teams below Bayern are inconsistent as a rule but look at Italy, Spain, England and then smaller countries like Portugal, Scotland, Holland, France and Belgium... You could guess 90% of the teams qualifying for Europe each season and they are all benefitting from European prize money season in, season out.

Blame UEFA or blame the clubs but money rules in football these days.

It's not a leveller in terms of CL winners but it is in terms of what it does in the leagues.

Bayern and Juventus absolutely dominated their leagues this decade, and that is bad. But it's not because of the CL that that has happened. Why? Because 2-3 other teams in their league will have access to that money no matter how dominant they are. Imagine how bad it would be if Bayern and Juventus alone benefitted from that? The CL is the only hope their rivals have of breaking that monopoly financially.

There are many other reasons for these things happening. Mostly it's sugar daddies and commercial. Look at how Juventus have changed their strip to appeal to the USA market. Look at how the "winter break" is usually used by clubs to make lucrative exhibition trips to the far East. That's the problem. Those are the markets that clubs like Forest will never be able to break into- the CL looks almosy doable compared to getting a slice of that.

In terms of the CL, in its 63 year history (not including this one) there have been (by my count) 21 different winners.

Nearly 1/3 of those titles have been won by just two teams (Madrid and Milan).

2/3 of titles have been won by just 6 clubs.


Note- Villa just missed off the end of my screenshot.

The point is that this is in the whole history of the European Cup. What we are seeing isn't a modern phenomenon. The same clubs have always dominated.

Steaua, Porto, Villa, Forest, Red Star, Dortmund, PSV, Feyenoord, Marseille, Hamburg, Celtic are the only 'non galactico' clubs to ever win. That's 13 titles to the non massive clubs in 64 years. Non massive clubs have as many as Real Madrid. Three of these have come in the Champions League era and we may have a fourth next week.

The European cup has never been any different. It is harder for smaller clubs to win now, but that is only because it is harder to win with so many more good sides. Forest had to beat what? 5 teams per year? And there could only be at most 4-5 other great teams in there because there were only one representative from Germany, Spain, Netherlands, Italy and Holland.

 

[Pope John XXIII]

Surely you could extend that to say finishing in the top four isnt especially relevant because last seasons best four clubs are not bound to be this seasons best four, particularly now there are six clubs fighting for four places.

The fact remains, winning your own league is a monumental feat in its self; a competition based on a league winning criteria would be far smaller than what you currently have but much higher in quality.

The original format wasnt broke; UEFA caved in to avoid a league being formed.

There is absolutely nothing to say it would be much higher quality.

The top four in each country tend to change little. In the PL it is any four from the same six. The CL entrants are therefore generally an aggregate of the best teams.

There can be no question that the CL is harder to win and has more quality if both Real Madrid and Barcelona are competing rather than just one of them. There can be no question that next year's CL will be harder to win and higher quality with both the current Man City and Liverpool sides competing.

It was lovely for forest to win it beating the champions of Greece, Sweden and East Germany (I know we had other good teams to play too) but it certainly helped never having to meet a Spanish or Italian team due to their limited entrants.

 

[Ingy]

It's called the Champions League and therefore should be the Champions only ,under that description ,or be called something else such as Best Of Europe Cup

 

[Pope John XXIII]

It's called the Champions League and therefore should be the Champions only ,under that description ,or be called something else such as Best Of Europe Cup

That is so pedantic. Seriously, that's your problem with it?

 

[mao tse tung]

It's not a leveller in terms of CL winners but it is in terms of what it does in the leagues.

Bayern and Juventus absolutely dominated their leagues this decade, and that is bad. But it's not because of the CL that that has happened. Why? Because 2-3 other teams in their league will have access to that money no matter how dominant they are. Imagine how bad it would be if Bayern and Juventus alone benefitted from that? The CL is the only hope their rivals have of breaking that monopoly financially.

There are many other reasons for these things happening. Mostly it's sugar daddies and commercial. Look at how Juventus have changed their strip to appeal to the USA market. Look at how the "winter break" is usually used by clubs to make lucrative exhibition trips to the far East. That's the problem. Those are the markets that clubs like Forest will never be able to break into- the CL looks almosy doable compared to getting a slice of that.

In terms of the CL, in its 63 year history (not including this one) there have been (by my count) 21 different winners.

Nearly 1/3 of those titles have been won by just two teams (Madrid and Milan).

2/3 of titles have been won by just 6 clubs.

View attachment 33119
Note- Villa just missed off the end of my screenshot.

The point is that this is in the whole history of the European Cup. What we are seeing isn't a modern phenomenon. The same clubs have always dominated.

Steaua, Porto, Villa, Forest, Red Star, Dortmund, PSV, Feyenoord, Marseille, Hamburg, Celtic are the only 'non galactico' clubs to ever win. That's 13 titles to the non massive clubs in 64 years. Non massive clubs have as many as Real Madrid. Three of these have come in the Champions League era and we may have a fourth next week.

The European cup has never been any different. It is harder for smaller clubs to win now, but that is only because it is harder to win with so many more good sides. Forest had to beat what? 5 teams per year? And there could only be at most 4-5 other great teams in there because there were only one representative from Germany, Spain, Netherlands, Italy and Holland.

Assuming Holland have not declared Independence, the teams from Germany, Spain, Netherlands and Italy will have already had to win their respective leagues, which was an integral part of the elimination process.

There has been a noticeable devaluation of the League title in recent years; this years aside due to the drama attached.

The emphasis now tends to be on who is top 4 and who qualifies.

The emphasis now is on the quantitative and not qualitative; the clubs have been bought off, Sky get their mid week games and we get to see a shed load of meaningless or one sides games until the knock out stages start.

 

[Pope John XXIII]

Assuming Holland have not declared Independence, the teams from Germany, Spain, Netherlands and Italy will have already had to win their respective leagues, which was an integral part of the elimination process.

There has been a noticeable devaluation of the League title in recent years; this years aside due to the drama attached.

The emphasis now tends to be on who is top 4 and who qualifies.

The emphasis now is on the quantitative and not qualitative; the clubs have been bought off, Sky get their mid week games and we get to see a shed load of meaningless or one sides games until the knock out stages start.

That isn't the case at all.

There is an emphasis on the league title when there is an actual competition for it, and England is better than most for that.

I remember Leicester celebrating winning the League wildly with an open bus tour. They had qualified for the CL several weeks earlier (and incredible achievement in itself) but that was merely a muted acknowledgement at the time and a footnote afterwards.

I personally have never seen a single clip montage of any last game CL qualification; but I have seen plenty of Aguero's goal against QPR or Steven Gerrard's slip, which had no bearing on CL qualification but lost Liverpool the title. On that note, I suggest you ask the Scouse if the league title is devalued in their eyes.

No question that money has talked. The big clubs want more games, more TV payouts and more full gates. That has meant more games.

That doesn't mean less quality and it doesn't mean the football viewer is being cheated. Quite the opposite in my view.

I personally want more football and I will watch almost anything that's on (maybe not Everton Vs Watford, but you get the idea). If the CL was on, I would watch a game and enjoy seeing two European sides match up even if it is the group stage. Far more appalling to me is that football is being split between different expensive subscription services.

Neither you nor I am qualified to say whether the group stages are 'meaningless' given our club has never completed in them. I have been to one of these meaningless games at Old Trafford. This one had nothing riding in it; last game of the group, Man Utd already through and the opponent's out, home team playing a second string- and yet it was still a thoroughly enjoyable game that I would have loved my team to have the chance to play.

And on the note of the name "champions" league, it is worth noting that a large proportion of the leagues involved do genuinely only send the champions. It is only the biggest leagues with more quality sides that send extra- to increase the quality, not dilute it

By the way, thank you for the comment about Holland, which has prompted me to finally find out the difference between Holland and the Netherlands- something I have always wondered but never previously got round to learning

 

[Basha73]

It's not a leveller in terms of CL winners but it is in terms of what it does in the leagues.

Bayern and Juventus absolutely dominated their leagues this decade, and that is bad. But it's not because of the CL that that has happened. Why? Because 2-3 other teams in their league will have access to that money no matter how dominant they are. Imagine how bad it would be if Bayern and Juventus alone benefitted from that? The CL is the only hope their rivals have of breaking that monopoly financially.

There are many other reasons for these things happening. Mostly it's sugar daddies and commercial. Look at how Juventus have changed their strip to appeal to the USA market. Look at how the "winter break" is usually used by clubs to make lucrative exhibition trips to the far East. That's the problem. Those are the markets that clubs like Forest will never be able to break into- the CL looks almosy doable compared to getting a slice of that.

In terms of the CL, in its 63 year history (not including this one) there have been (by my count) 21 different winners.

Nearly 1/3 of those titles have been won by just two teams (Madrid and Milan).

2/3 of titles have been won by just 6 clubs.

View attachment 33119
Note- Villa just missed off the end of my screenshot.

The point is that this is in the whole history of the European Cup. What we are seeing isn't a modern phenomenon. The same clubs have always dominated.

Steaua, Porto, Villa, Forest, Red Star, Dortmund, PSV, Feyenoord, Marseille, Hamburg, Celtic are the only 'non galactico' clubs to ever win. That's 13 titles to the non massive clubs in 64 years. Non massive clubs have as many as Real Madrid. Three of these have come in the Champions League era and we may have a fourth next week.

The European cup has never been any different. It is harder for smaller clubs to win now, but that is only because it is harder to win with so many more good sides. Forest had to beat what? 5 teams per year? And there could only be at most 4-5 other great teams in there because there were only one representative from Germany, Spain, Netherlands, Italy and Holland.

I still fail to see how it’s a leveller. Per your example, in two leagues the division is dominated by one club despite CL money. In the rest the leagues are dominated by 2-6 teams who are all regularly qualifying. Not exactly a leveller for the rest of those leagues is it?

As for you examples of CL winners, it actually proves my point:

64 years and 13 non ‘elite’ teams as winners. Some, including us on more than one occasion.

In the last 15-20 years how many non ‘elite’ team winners were there? I count Porto.

In other words the change of format along with the financial floodgates opening has wiped out any prospect of fair competition. It has been a leveller but only if you are a big club who regularly finishes in the top 4.

There have always been ‘money’ clubs such as Man City and PSG - look at Chelsea and Blackburn in our recent history. The established elite don’t like it though and will do anything to stop it. Their ‘elitism’ is institutionalised and UEFAs own greed coupled with their fear of a break away perpetuates it.

And as for ‘Champions’ League, it implies something that it is not. It’s like the Yanks and their ‘World Series’ of baseball. It is not pedantic to suggest that the name is wrong or misleading when it actually is.

 

[Pope John XXIII]

I still fail to see how it’s a leveller. Per your example, in two leagues the division is dominated by one club despite CL money. In the rest the leagues are dominated by 2-6 teams who are all regularly qualifying. Not exactly a leveller for the rest of those leagues is it?

As for you examples of CL winners, it actually proves my point:

64 years and 13 non ‘elite’ teams as winners. Some, including us on more than one occasion.

In the last 15-20 years how many non ‘elite’ team winners were there? I count Porto.

In other words the change of format along with the financial floodgates opening has wiped out any prospect of fair competition. It has been a leveller but only if you are a big club who regularly finishes in the top 4.

There have always been ‘money’ clubs such as Man City and PSG - look at Chelsea and Blackburn in our recent history. The established elite don’t like it though and will do anything to stop it. Their ‘elitism’ is institutionalised and UEFAs own greed coupled with their fear of a break away perpetuates it.

And as for ‘Champions’ League, it implies something that it is not. It’s like the Yanks and their ‘World Series’ of baseball. It is not pedantic to suggest that the name is wrong or misleading when it actually is.

I've explained what I mean by it being a leveller twice already. You either aren't reading or aren't understanding. I don't mind if you disagree but you are asking me to explain something when I have already done so twice. Check out my previous post if you want the explanation you seek and I will ask again- how much worse would the German or Italian Hegemony be if only one club recieved CL money? There is no evidence that the CL is to blame for this hegemony, given that so many other German and italian clubs have benefitted as well.

And as a leveller, let's not forget that we have actually seen clubs join the elite.

Not sure why you are arbitarily picking 15-20 years. In the CL era there have been three teams outside of the elite who have won it, and in a week that could be four. That's a lot more than in the first 20 years of the European cup's history.

And the 15-20 year timeframe proves my point as well. Effectively, you are arguing that the elite clubs have locked out the others- not in the timeframe of the Champions league's new format (which goes back to the early 90's) but in the timeframe of those clubs seeking and benefiting from a huge boom in commercial markets in the west and far east.

 

[Ingy]

That is so pedantic. Seriously, that's your problem with it?

Well explain why you would call a trophy champions if it includes clubs that weren't champions? Although you may regard it as pedantic why would you call something it aint.....Pope John XX111! That last bit was a joke though chap.

 

[Pope John XXIII]

Well explain why you would call a trophy champions if it includes clubs that weren't champions? Although you may regard it as pedantic why would you call something it aint.....Pope John XX111! That last bit was a joke though chap.

In fairness, all the champions of Europe are in it.

 

[Basha73]

I've explained what I mean by it being a leveller twice already. You either aren't reading or aren't understanding. I don't mind if you disagree but you are asking me to explain something when I have already done so twice. Check out my previous post if you want the explanation you seek and I will ask again- how much worse would the German or Italian Hegemony be if only one club recieved CL money? There is no evidence that the CL is to blame for this hegemony, given that so many other German and italian clubs have benefitted as well.

And as a leveller, let's not forget that we have actually seen clubs join the elite.

Not sure why you are arbitarily picking 15-20 years. In the CL era there have been three teams outside of the elite who have won it, and in a week that could be four. That's a lot more than in the first 20 years of the European cup's history.

And the 15-20 year timeframe proves my point as well. Effectively, you are arguing that the elite clubs have locked out the others- not in the timeframe of the Champions league's new format (which goes back to the early 90's) but in the timeframe of those clubs seeking and benefiting from a huge boom in commercial markets in the west and far east.

How could the Italian and German leagues be any worse? Granted this year Dortmund ran Bayern close but both leagues are already dominated by one club.

I understand perfectly what you are saying but I disagree with it. A leveller is only a leveller if it equalises the whole of the field not just a very small part.

15-20 years is a reasonable timeframe in terms of the evolution of the CL but it’s also how far back my memory travels without having to cross check. If you want to go back to the start of the CL when it went to top two format, be my guest as it would still support what I am saying.

The economic boom or bust is largely irrelevant as everyone either benefits or loses out and it depends how well the clubs are run. The closed shop is certainly nothing to do with it and has been done by UEFA and the clubs themselves.

If Spurs win next week it will be the closest thing to a non elite since Porto and for my money that just devalues the whole competition.

 

[Ingy]

In fairness, all the champions of Europe are in it.

It's a bit like the Eurovision Song Contest,not that I watch it of course, having Australia in it! If I am buying an orange that's what I want not a lemon.Maybe it's me but it contradicts itself.If you gonna change the way it's run then change the name of it....simples.

 

[Pope John XXIII]

How could the Italian and German leagues be any worse? Granted this year Dortmund ran Bayern close but both leagues are already dominated by one club.

I understand perfectly what you are saying but I disagree with it. A leveller is only a leveller if it equalises the whole of the field not just a very small part.

15-20 years is a reasonable timeframe in terms of the evolution of the CL but it’s also how far back my memory travels without having to cross check. If you want to go back to the start of the CL when it went to top two format, be my guest as it would still support what I am saying.

The economic boom or bust is largely irrelevant as everyone either benefits or loses out and it depends how well the clubs are run. The closed shop is certainly nothing to do with it and has been done by UEFA and the clubs themselves.

If Spurs win next week it will be the closest thing to a non elite since Porto and for my money that just devalues the whole competition.

Not one part of the history of the CL supports what you are saying.

The European cup was actually invented to test a British media assertion that Wolves were the best team in Europe. In its first 20 years only Feyenoord and Celtic won it outside of the elite clubs.

Now in the last 20 years we have had Porto win it and possibly Spurs. Given the vast influx of cash that you seem to think is harmful, what has actually changed?

I disagree with your definition of leveller completely. Something that is a leveller does not need to make things exactly equal at all, merely more equal. I find it hard to support an argument that the German league would be more equal it Bayern Munich were the sole German representatives for seven consecutive years.

And you are completely wrong IMO about where the financial issues are coming from- naieve in fact.

The clubs absolutely have done it themselves but it has nothing to do with the CL or an agenda by UEFA. The only agenda I can discern from UEFA is simple survival in the face of breakaway threats.

The real money is coming from the commercial and sponsorship revenue around the world. It's very easy to lambast UEFA and the CL for ruining things, it even sky; yet it is not their fault that in the last 20 years Man Utd have gained an official pillow partner and an official snack partner. It isn't their fault that Real Madrid can sign players like Ronaldo 10 years ago on outrageous contracts because they expect to make the revenue back in far east shirt sales.

It's not their fault either that PL clubs are desperate for a long winter break; not so they can rest players but so they can get in on the lucrative exhibition match market.

What some of you seem to actually want is to reduce the quantity and quantity of a competition that I actually enjoy based on some autistic pedantry and misty eyed belief that the way it was when you were a kid was right and how things are now is wrong. I only have to look at the current state of politics to know how much harm that attitude is doing to the country