I thought you are taking this in a different direction. Teams having to play in revealing, all leather, shirt and shorts.
CL should introduce wildcards, says Barca president
- Thread starter rednev
- Start date
That is exactly how Nazi Germany started
I disagree. The champion has the right to defend their title. In fact, their place in the tournament is more justified than that of any other club.
Elite club favouritism at its finest
Back in the late 1980s Silvio Berlusconi expressed a similar sentiment. Just sub out "bad season" for "bad draw in the first round" and "Champions League" for "European Cup" and it's the same quote. In the interests of retaining some sort of competitive value to a Champions League that already systematically favours elite clubs, let's hope this idea doesn't have legs.Elite Club Twat said:
They do this in some of the big tennis tournaments dont they? I don't notice much fuss about it there so why not?
No, terrible idea.
Some of the members have already mentioned just a sample of reasons i.e. Tennis not being a billion dollar industry like Football, so the indifferences this could cause will out-weigh any mere positive impact of such stipulation.
If you don't qualify you're out. Simple. It's bad enough that the winners now get to side-step the rules, no need for more "exceptions".
A definite no. Terrible idea.
A definite no. Terrible idea.
Silly idea. A team shouldn't be in the competition just because it's a big name and therefore shouldn't take the spot of another smaller team, who performed better in the same or their league and qualified. It's already hard enough for the small teams to compete with the big and rich clubs, that rule would make it even harder, doesn't sound fair to me.
What rules
Top 4 finish in major leagues...etc. to qualify for CL. I meant winner of CL or EL.What rules
Rather then wildcards I would give allow all top 4 in major leagues a chance to play in the CL
Definitely. This, the 39th Premier League match, a European Super League... these are all things the sport definitely needs. It's not as if it's been any fun seeing Leicester confound expectations this year.
The winner of the CL has always been able to defend their trophy from the beginning. Hierachy of deservedness:
1. Winner of competition
2. Winners of domestic leagues
3. Runner ups and other clubs to make up the places
If they are so concerned about the money thing, make the tournament 64 teams, Just double every country's slots with qualifying rounds like happens now.
The original 32 get seeded, the other 32 unseeded. K/O 2 legged match. If the unseeded team is lucky, we might be looking at say Utd vs Gent else Utd vs Barca. Then the normal format
The original 32 get seeded, the other 32 unseeded. K/O 2 legged match. If the unseeded team is lucky, we might be looking at say Utd vs Gent else Utd vs Barca. Then the normal format
It's not a fair idea, but the team finishing outside the CL spots isn't necessarily going to be the same team playing the competition next year.
For example if we finish 5th but change the manager and sign 2 or 3 top quality players, i'd fancy our chances and chelsea's to do much better than spurs and LC, both team fully deserve to be the CL but it'd be a miracle if they make it out of group stages.
So i kinda understand where he's coming from, but i agree that it's not fair.
For example if we finish 5th but change the manager and sign 2 or 3 top quality players, i'd fancy our chances and chelsea's to do much better than spurs and LC, both team fully deserve to be the CL but it'd be a miracle if they make it out of group stages.
So i kinda understand where he's coming from, but i agree that it's not fair.
Why don't we just go the whole hog and pay other clubs so that we always come 1st every year
Then instead of the bigger clubs already having a massive advantage, we could make sure it's 100% fixed every year.
That'd be great wouldn't it.
Spot on, that was exactly the point I was trying to make.
Though I the guess reactions are my own fault for not explaining it better. By the way @Black Adder I've been reading up on Cluj and Maribor, and you were absolutely right for accusing me of making one of the most ignorant posts ever on this board, they truly have a magnificent history.
Remember when there used to be that first knockout group stage?
My word that was a tedious procession!
Thanks for noticing, now tell me what european history have PSG, Arsenal or City, besides being much richer than Cluj or Maribor?
1- The bolded part is wrong. The rules were changed in 2005. While the winners usually qualify for the next season's CL, there was no rule to give them an exception/automatic qualification, until 2005.
2- That order is your opinion, which I disagree with strongly. There is no way Liverpool (2005) and Chelsea (2012) were better or more deserving to compete in the top competition than the league winners. They were just sh*tty teams who got lucky in a cup competition. The league is always a better indicator of how good a team is than any cup competition.
3- It's not only the CL winner, but the Europa League winner too is getting that exception now.
4- Even though I don't like those exceptions (whether you agree with me or not), awarding automatic qualification randomly like that is just taking it to a whole new (stupid) level. Just give the spots to the teams that earned their places through playing a long season to prove they're the best in their country.
"Champions" league
No, just no
No, just no
Are you 12? If you read back the thread, where do I imply City or PSG are such great additions for the Champions League? And what's Arsenal got to do with them, they've made they're own success by steadily building a nice club instead of spending an insane amount of artificial money, and they've done pretty well reaching the knock out rounds of the Champions League countless of times.
It is not wrong. Real Zarazoga got bumped by Real Madrid who finished 5th in 2000 while winning it. The hoopla came about as a result of inconsistencies in the English FA in 2005. UEFA rightly ruled that whoever wins the CL (which by the way, is not a title for the best club in Europe, but a title for the club who was able to win the damned competition) should be in it next season. By your rationale, if a club from Ireland won the CL but finished second, then they shouldn't be awarded a place in the competition next season. That's ludicrous. The league is a separate competition from the Champions League. How is a 4th placed team in one competition more worthy to enter another qualification than a team that actually won that competition?
I don't think Europa League winners should be able to enter the CL. Make it it's own reward. I also disagree with the overall premise of the thread. Just felt you went a little bit too far on the other side IMO
Reaching knock out rounds suddenly means
success in Europe? Oh what an achivement!
I'd support it as along the wildcard is well defined.
Instead of a wildcard they should pick the best remaining players left playing in Europe in teams that didn't qualify and make a super team out of them and enter them into the Champions League.
Fair enough.It is not wrong. Real Zarazoga got bumped by Real Madrid who finished 5th in 2000 while winning it. The hoopla came about as a result of inconsistencies in the English FA in 2005. UEFA rightly ruled that whoever wins the CL (which by the way, is not a title for the best club in Europe, but a title for the club who was able to win the damned competition) should be in it next season. By your rationale, if a club from Ireland won the CL but finished second, then they shouldn't be awarded a place in the competition next season. That's ludicrous. The league is a separate competition from the Champions League. How is a 4th placed team in one competition more worthy to enter another qualification than a team that actually won that competition?
I don't think Europa League winners should be able to enter the CL. Make it it's own reward. I also disagree with the overall premise of the thread. Just felt you went a little bit too far on the other side IMO
I'm still with the FA on the CL winner exception, but I can live with the winner of the Champions getting a place, but Europa League winner and now this
(which thankfully won't happen).The big teams already get enough going their way as it is, even with teams dropping into the Europa League. As mentioned, if you're not good enough to qualify in the first place then it's tough luck and your own fault.
This new idea won't benefit smaller clubs, just the likes of Man Utd or whoever misses out on a place that season.
This new idea won't benefit smaller clubs, just the likes of Man Utd or whoever misses out on a place that season.
CRINGE
Hate the idea. Give places to teams deserving the place.
Finally someone has had the courage to stand up for the big clubs. For too long now the CL and football in general has sought to punish the biggest and wealthiest clubs and it needs to stop now.
As a big tennis fan, I don't have a problem with wild cards. Unlike tennis though, I can't see how it would work in football.
Nevertheless, the idea is tempting when you're struggling as we are
It might not seem like you deserve it if you did not finish in the top four of your league, but who knows what the next season will bring? Look at Goran Ivanisevic, struggling with his game and physically for a while before Wimbledon 2001 - he was so bad, no one thought he'd win anything much less Wimbledon. As a 3 times finalist however, the All England club granted him a wildcard, and it turned out to be one of the very best grand slam performances from a player, and extremely entertaining for the audience.
Nevertheless, the idea is tempting when you're struggling as we are
It might not seem like you deserve it if you did not finish in the top four of your league, but who knows what the next season will bring? Look at Goran Ivanisevic, struggling with his game and physically for a while before Wimbledon 2001 - he was so bad, no one thought he'd win anything much less Wimbledon. As a 3 times finalist however, the All England club granted him a wildcard, and it turned out to be one of the very best grand slam performances from a player, and extremely entertaining for the audience.
Shit idea. There are 3-4 teams that qualify for UCL from top countries. If you're not one of them, then you have no business being in UCL.
Yes but 2 games more and basically guaranteed qualification for all top sides, without a lot of controversy, thats win win for clubs and UEFA
Yeah but it would in turn hurt the leagues. The top 4 is a major selling point (and let's be honest, often more exciting than who is going to win the league).
A 64 team competition might work if the vast majority of those places where given to Leagues 4-52, but even then you are just further weakening the competition.
Yes, I do agree that slots should be given for lower leagues, and I am against this, but what I'm saying is instead of trying to implement wildcards, I'd rather a 64 team tournament instead.
In tennis it is a good idea because players who have been out with injuries maybe deserve to participate even if they dont qualify. In football there is no such argument
And expanding it makes the Europa an even crapper competition still.
Which takes some doing.